Poland is the most advanced Central European jurisdiction on legal-AI conduct rules. The National Bar Council amended the advocates' ethics code at its 12–13 June 2026 plenary, adding § 23e on technology tools, and the National Chamber of Legal Advisers issued 22 AI recommendations in April 2025. Courts have criticised AI-drafted pleadings but no practice direction exists.
As of 2026-09-04, Poland has 8 binding rules, official guidance in 2 categories, 1 proposal and 3 positions set only by case law across the 20 categories in the map. Binding rules cover duty to verify AI output, client data in AI tools, technological competence, supervision of AI work, client consent and transparency, bar guidance on generative AI, horizontal AI statute, mandatory AI training. In 5 categories we found nothing; in 1 the position is not yet determined.
How to read this page
Binding ruleBinding rule means a rule in force from a court, statute, regulator or equivalent authority.
Official guidanceOfficial guidance means an official non-binding position from a judiciary, regulator, bar or public body.
Proposed / consultationProposed / consultation means a public bill, draft rule or consultation that is not yet in force.
Set by case lawSet by case law means no rule was found, but courts have set the position in decisions.
Nothing foundNothing found means the category was checked and no rule, guidance, proposal or case-law position was found.
Not yet determinedNot yet determined means research did not establish a reliable position yet.
New § 23e of the Zbiór Zasad Etyki Adwokackiej (adopted 12–13 June 2026) requires an advocate to personally assess and verify results produced by technological tools, so as not to harm the client by failing to evaluate output independently. KIRP recommendations impose the same duty on radcowie prawni.
§ 23e of the advocates' ethics code bars processing information covered by professional secrecy [tajemnica adwokacka] in a technological tool unless the tool's mechanisms guarantee proper protection of such data. KIRP recommendations address the equivalent duty for legal advisers.
§ 23e requires an advocate using technological tools to have the competence to assess their limitations and associated risks. The EU AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty also applies directly to Polish firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025.
The ethics code amendment states that use of technological tools does not release the advocate from personal responsibility for the form and content of professional activities. KIRP recommendations stress maintaining human oversight over technology use.
Under the amended advocates' code, disclosure is not generally required unless law demands it, but a client may ask which technologies are used and why. KIRP Recommendations 13 and 14 separately tell legal advisers to work out when to inform the client (including AI Act Art. 50 duties) and when consent is needed.
Two-track. 'AI w pracy radcy prawnego' (KIRP, 1st edition, Warsaw 2025, ISBN 978-83-972004-4-9) sets 22 recommendations for legal advisers and is guidance. The NRA ethics code amendments of 12–13 June 2026 (new § 23e, amended § 19(6)) bind advocates.
The EU AI Act applies directly, with Annex III point 8(a) covering justice-administration systems from 2 December 2027 after the Digital Omnibus deferral. Poland's national implementing bill designating supervisory authorities was still in the legislative process in 2026.
No AI-specific CLE mandate. KIRP Recommendations 17 and 20 tie internal AI training to the AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty and urge regular refreshers. NRA runs voluntary AI training and surveyed AI use by advocates nationally.
KIRP Recommendation 15 asks legal advisers to work out when AI use should affect the client's fee: on a fixed fee the client may expect lower cost as tasks are automated, while on hourly rates AI use is in the client's interest. No binding Polish rule or disciplinary decision found.
KIRP Recommendations 1–11 are a procurement checklist: purpose, what data enters the tool, which contract applies, supplier confidentiality commitments, IP and indemnity terms, GDPR role assessment, security measures, integration and fine-tuning. Recommendation 22 covers incident management.
The Ministry of Justice is running proof-of-concept AI and automation projects in courts and prosecution services and maintains a dedicated portal, si-dla-sprawiedliwosci.gov.pl; no adopted deployment policy located as of 4 September 2026.
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.
In the Wrocław case the court held that printouts of a party's ChatGPT queries submitted as exhibits are not evidence within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure. No general rule on AI-generated or deepfake evidence.
The District Court in Wrocław dismissed a ChatGPT-drafted claim that mixed the Civil Code with public-procurement law and subtly altered quoted provisions. No reported Polish disciplinary sanction against a lawyer for hallucinated citations as of 4 September 2026.
No Polish court rule requires disclosure or certification of AI use in pleadings; the Code of Civil Procedure [k.p.c.] is silent as of 4 September 2026.
No guidance for judges on generative AI found. The Ministry of Justice runs proof-of-concept AI pilots and states AI will not replace judges, but has published no judicial use policy as of 4 September 2026.
No Polish rule bars AI from adjudicative reasoning; the Ministry of Justice's stated position that AI supports rather than replaces judges is policy, not a binding instrument.
UODO has commented on AI in public statements, but no dedicated UODO guidance on generative AI applicable to the legal sector was confirmed within the research budget.
SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Tracker, "Poland" (updated 2026-09-04, verified 2026-09-04), https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/pl (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.
Poland
EU-level rules also apply —