Lithuania
EU-level rules also apply — EU AI Act Art. 4 AI-literacy duty applies directly to Lithuanian law firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025. No domestic competence rule naming AI was found; the Bar addresses the topic through its IT and AI Committee's training rather than a rule.
Regulation Tracker · Country · Europe
Lithuania
Developingcivil lawupdated 2026-09-04verified 2026-09-04
EU-level rules also apply — see the European Union record →
Lithuania has no published bar guidance or court rule on AI in legal practice as of September 2026, but the Lithuanian Bar has a standing Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Committee that convenes regularly and ran practical AI training for advocates on 9 September 2026. The Communications Regulatory Authority (RRT) hosts the national AI Act supervision function.
As of 2026-09-04, Lithuania has 3 binding rules, official guidance in 0 categories, 0 proposals and 0 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover technological competence, horizontal AI statute, mandatory AI training. In 13 categories we found nothing; in 4 the position is not yet determined.
How to read this page
- Binding rule Binding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
- Official guidance Official guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
- Proposed / consultation Proposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
- Set by case law Set by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
- Nothing found Nothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
- Not yet determined Not yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.
The rules, category by category
The AI Act applies directly. Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI assisting judicial authorities in researching and interpreting facts and law as high-risk; Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027. RRT hosts national AI Act supervision alongside DSA and Data Act supervision.
No Lithuanian CLE rule names AI. The AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty applies to firms as deployers. The Bar's IT and AI Committee ran a full-day practical course, 'AI in the advocate's practice: opportunities, tools and safe use', on 9 September 2026; attendance is voluntary.
No Lithuanian court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings; the Code of Civil Procedure is silent and the courts portal publishes no AI direction as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or bar guidance imposing an explicit duty to verify AI output or citations was published as of 4 September 2026. The Bar's September 2026 training covers 'safe, responsible and professional' use but is not a normative document.
The National Courts Administration publishes no guidance for judges or court staff on generative AI as of 4 September 2026. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Lithuania as a Council of Europe state but is non-binding.
No Lithuanian instrument expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning; the position rests on judicial independence under the Constitution and the Law on Courts rather than an AI-specific rule.
No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.
No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.
Advocate professional secrecy under the Law on the Bar and the Code of Professional Ethics applies generally, but no rule or guidance restricting client data entered into AI tools was published as of 4 September 2026.
No duty on supervising advocates or law offices over AI-assisted work by trainee advocates [advokatų padėjėjai] or staff found as of 4 September 2026.
No requirement to inform clients of or obtain consent for AI use in legal work found as of 4 September 2026.
No Lithuanian rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.
Representation in most court proceedings is reserved to advocates, but no ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.
Lietuvos advokatūra had published no generative-AI guidance document as of 4 September 2026, but maintains a standing Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Committee [Informacinių technologijų ir dirbtinio intelekto komitetas] that meets regularly, making guidance a live prospect.
No rule or guidance on procuring or contracting legal AI tools (security, training data, residency) published as of 4 September 2026.
The National Courts Administration operates Lithuania's LITEKO court information system, but no published policy on institutional AI deployment was located during research.
Whether VDAI has issued generative-AI guidance could not be determined; its site could not be searched during research.
No reported Lithuanian court sanction or Court of Honour decision over hallucinated citations was located, but Lithuanian case and disciplinary databases could not be searched during research.
Whether the Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration has issued an AI note or rule could not be checked during research.
Official documents recorded for Lithuania (1)
- AI in the advocate's practice: opportunities, tools and safe use [DI advokato praktikoje: galimybės, įrankiai ir saugus naudojimas]
Lietuvos advokatūra · revised 2026-09-01 · verified 2026-09-04
Court incidents on the record in Lithuania
- Yichang District Court (Hubei)2026-07-21 Warning
Cite this page
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Lithuania" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/lt (accessed 2026-09-04). Data: CC BY 4.0.
SafeLegalAI is a research publication by Cognesio LLP, not a law firm. Nothing here is legal advice, and no lawyer–client relationship arises from reading it. Rules change; always check the official document linked on each record and take advice on your own situation. Researched and drafted with AI assistance; verified against primary sources and edited by Cognesio LLP. The linked official documents are the record — our summaries are not the law and are not legal advice.