Do self-represented litigants get AI-specific court guidance?

Australia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-16

Practice notes bind self-represented litigants directly (NSW SC Gen 23, NSW Local Court, NCAT PD 7, GPN-AI, PD-AI). Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia also publish plain-language guidelines for non-lawyers. Queensland PD 5 of 2025 warns of adjournment and adverse costs for fake citations.

• The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence: Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers
• Guidelines for Litigants: Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Litigation
• Guidelines concerning the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in litigation in South Australian Courts
• Practice Note: Generative Artificial Intelligence
• NCAT Procedural Direction 7: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI)
• Practice Direction Number 5 of 2025: Accuracy of References in Submissions
• Guidelines for the use of generative AI
• Supreme Court of Queensland — PD 5 of 2025, cl 15-17
• Supreme Court of WA — Guidelines for the use of generative AI

Canada

Americas · verified 2026-09-16

Court directions expressly bind self-represented litigants: Federal Court, Manitoba King's Bench, Yukon, Saskatchewan GA-PD #12 and Ontario's factum certification all apply to parties without counsel. The Provincial Court of British Columbia published plain-language guidance for litigants on 8 July 2026.

• Notice to the Parties and the Profession: The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings
• Practice Direction: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Court Submissions
• Practice Direction GENERAL-29: Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
• Provincial Court of BC — Guidance on using AI to prepare for court

Ireland

Europe · verified 2026-09-16

PD HC 142 applies to litigants and parties as well as lawyers. Two 2026 Court of Appeal judgments concern self-represented litigants: Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48 (Costello P; appeal dismissed, five principles laid down) and Von Geitz v Kelly [2026] IECA 29 (Allen J; submissions with 'a few non-existent cases', appeals dismissed, verification held to be the litigant's own responsibility).

• Practice Direction HC 142: Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Documents
• Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48 (courts.ie, official PDF)
• Von Geitz v Kelly [2026] IECA 29 (courts.ie, official PDF)

Philippines

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

By scope rather than by dedicated rule. Court users under the Framework expressly include members of the public, whether appearing for themselves or others, for all submissions and evidence presentation, and users are personally responsible for the output.

• A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC: Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary
• A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)

Singapore

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-16

The court guide applies to all court users, expressly including litigants in person, on the same terms as represented parties: use is permitted, responsibility is personal, and fabricated authorities attract costs. Four of the seven reported Singapore AI-citation cases involved self-represented parties.

• Registrar's Circular No. 1 of 2024: Guide on the Use of Generative AI Tools by Court Users
• Singapore Courts — Guide on the use of generative AI tools by court users (PDF)

United States

Americas · verified 2026-09-16

Binding only in courts whose standing orders extend to self-represented parties: Judge Starr's certification applies to pro se filers as well as counsel; Judge Fuentes's current order relies on the Rule 11 certification for all filers. There is no judiciary-wide guidance for litigants in person.

• Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence (Judge Brantley Starr)
• Standing Order for Civil Cases (generative AI provision), Magistrate Judge Gabriel A. Fuentes

New Zealand

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-16

A separate non-lawyer version of the guidelines exists. The judicial version tells judges that lay litigants often cannot verify AI legal information and may not know it is error-prone, and that it may be appropriate to ask what accuracy checks they made. Every reported New Zealand AI-citation case has involved a self-represented party.

• Guidelines for use of generative artificial intelligence in Courts and Tribunals
• Courts of New Zealand — generative AI guidelines (all three versions)

United Kingdom

Europe · verified 2026-09-16

Judiciary guidance addresses litigants in person using AI and warns judges to check citations, and it is reinforced by a line of tribunal decisions: Harber v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC) (nine fabricated authorities, appeal dismissed — the first reported UK case), Bandla v SRA [2025] EWHC 1167 (Admin) (about 27 non-existent authorities cited by a struck-off solicitor acting in person) and Folarin v Immigration Services Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 135 (GRC) (ChatGPT-sourced authorities; tribunal noted such conduct may amount to contempt).

• Artificial Intelligence (AI): Judicial Guidance
• Harber v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC), Find Case Law
• Folarin v Immigration Services Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 135 (GRC), Find Case Law

India

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-16

No court guidance exists for self-represented litigants. The draft Supreme Court regulations would extend the AI-use declaration to parties. The Delhi High Court in September 2025 treated a homebuyers' association petition built on ChatGPT-fabricated citations as impermissible and allowed withdrawal under threat of further action.

• Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026
• ThePrint on the Delhi High Court order

China

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

The Case Database entry from Tongzhou applies to litigation participants generally, and a Hubei Dawu County court admonished a self-represented plaintiff who filed AI-watermarked fabricated utility-bill photographs in November 2025.

• Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court: counsel criticised for filing AI-fabricated precedents
• China News Service report

France

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No guidance document. TA Grenoble (3 Dec 2025, no. 2509827 and 9 Dec 2025, no. 2512468) rejected submissions by self-represented litigants built on fabricated case references, warning that generative AI is 'totalement inadapté à cet usage'; the second applicant had left the chatbot dialogue in the pleading.

• Village de la Justice — French AI hallucination decisions (secondary)

Kenya

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

Both leading rulings arose from filings by a litigant, Nayan Mansukhlal Savla. The March 2026 ruling struck out the AI-generated notice of motion and affidavit for breach of Order 51 rule 13 and Order 19 rules 4-5, holding the defects incurable by amendment but permitting a fresh compliant filing. No court guidance for self-represented litigants exists.

• High Court of Kenya rulings on AI-generated pleadings: Savla v Commission on Administrative Justice and the April 2026 set-aside
• Milimani court strikes out AI-generated application (Capital FM, 11 Mar 2026)

Poland

Europe · verified 2026-09-11

The District Court in Wrocław dismissed a claim drafted with ChatGPT, holding that AI output 'may be treated only as part of a party's argumentation' and does not constitute evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure. No court guidance for self-represented parties exists.

• Gazeta Prawna — court: ChatGPT is not evidence

Afghanistan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Albania

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Algeria

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Argentina

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented parties found as of 4 September 2026.

Armenia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Austria

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Austrian court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Azerbaijan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Bahrain

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Bangladesh

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Belarus

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Belgium

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Bolivia

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Botswana

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Brazil

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented parties. The Superior Court of Justice noted in June 2025 that small-claims litigants may lawfully use AI-drafted petitions, but issued no guidance.

• STJ SLS 3.596: refusal to suspend AI petition-drafting platform Resolve Juizado

Brunei

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Bulgaria

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Cambodia

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Cameroon

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Chile

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented parties found as of 4 September 2026.

Colombia

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented parties on AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Costa Rica

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Côte d'Ivoire

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Croatia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Cuba

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Cyprus

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Denmark

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Dominican Republic

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Ecuador

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Egypt

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

El Salvador

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Estonia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Ethiopia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

European Union

Europe · verified 2026-09-16

No EU-level guidance for self-represented litigants using AI; the e-Justice Portal offers no AI-specific advice and the issue is left to national courts.

Georgia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Germany

Europe · verified 2026-09-11

No court guidance for self-represented parties using AI found as of 11 September 2026.

Ghana

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026

Greece

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Guatemala

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Honduras

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Hong Kong SAR

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No Hong Kong court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026, although both reported Hong Kong AI-citation cases involved unrepresented parties. In Licksun the plaintiff's list of authorities was said to have been prepared by a non-legally-trained employee.

• AI Hallucination Cases database — Hong Kong filter

Iceland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Indonesia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rules addressing self-represented litigants' AI use. The e-Court framework (PERMA 1/2019 as amended by PERMA 7/2022) permits registered non-advocate users but says nothing about AI.

International bodies

International bodies · verified 2026-09-04

No international body has issued guidance for self-represented litigants using AI as of 4 September 2026. UNESCO principles on equality of arms and Ciarb 6.3 touch on unequal AI access but are addressed to courts and tribunals, not to litigants.

• UNESCO Guidelines for the use of AI systems in courts and tribunals

Iran

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Iraq

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Israel

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Procedure 01-26 is expressly limited to judges and court staff and does not address litigants or lawyers.

• Bizportal/Takdin on scope of Procedure 01-26

Italy

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants on AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Jamaica

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Japan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Jordan

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Kazakhstan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Kuwait

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Kyrgyzstan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Laos

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Latvia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Lebanon

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Lithuania

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Luxembourg

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Luxembourg court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Macao

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Malaysia

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No Malaysian court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found on the judiciary portal as of 4 September 2026.

• Office of the Chief Registrar — site search (no results)

Malta

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Mauritius

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Mexico

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Moldova

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Mongolia

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Montenegro

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Morocco

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Mozambique

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Myanmar

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Namibia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Nepal

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Netherlands

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No published court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Nicaragua

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Nigeria

Africa · verified 2026-09-04

no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026

North Macedonia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Norway

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented parties using AI as of 4 September 2026, although Norwegian commentary flags a rise in AI-assisted self-representation.

Oman

Middle East · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Pakistan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Panama

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Paraguay

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Peru

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Portugal

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants on AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Puerto Rico

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Qatar

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No separate guidance for self-represented litigants; the QICDRC practice direction binds parties generally, whether represented or not.

• Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 and Practice Guidance on the Use of Artificial Intelligence

Russia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Rwanda

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Saudi Arabia

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Senegal

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Serbia

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Slovenia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

South Africa

Africa · verified 2026-09-16

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 16 September 2026.

South Korea

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Spain

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants on AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Sri Lanka

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Sweden

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No guidance for self-represented parties using AI found as of 4 September 2026, despite the Eskilstuna case and Swedish legal-press coverage of the issue.

Switzerland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No Swiss court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Taiwan

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Tanzania

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Trinidad and Tobago

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Tunisia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Türkiye

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026 for self-represented parties using AI. The TBB Guide is addressed to lawyers, trainee lawyers and law-office staff only.

Uganda

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Ukraine

Europe · researched 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

United Arab Emirates

Middle East · verified 2026-09-04

No guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026; the DIFC guidance note is addressed to parties in proceedings generally.

Uruguay

Americas · verified 2026-09-04

No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.

Uzbekistan

Asia-Pacific · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Venezuela

Americas · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.

Zambia

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Zimbabwe

Africa · researched 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.

Czechia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's web-search budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Finland

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

No court guidance for self-represented parties using AI was located; the courts' public portal could not be searched. Position not determined as of 4 September 2026.

Hungary

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Romania

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Slovakia

Europe · verified 2026-09-04

Not researched — the session's web-search budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.

Thailand

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Not substantiated. No Thai court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was located.

Vietnam

Asia-Pacific · verified 2026-09-04

Not substantiated. No Vietnamese court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was located.