{ "dataset": "SafeLegalAI Legal AI Regulation Map", "license": "CC BY 4.0", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation", "taxonomy": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation#categories", "generated": "2026-09-04T14:34:52.315Z", "count": 130, "countries": [ { "id": "af", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/af", "name": "Afghanistan", "iso": "AF", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "religious-mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Afghanistan has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice, communications ministry and bar-related sources found no AI court disclosure rule, judicial guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, sanction case or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Afghanistan", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.af/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://moj.gov.af/", "role": "justice ministry" }, { "name": "Ministry of Communications and IT", "url": "https://mcit.gov.af/", "role": "digital regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific guidance from a data-protection authority relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Afghanistan", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.af/" }, { "label": "Ministry of Justice of Afghanistan", "url": "https://moj.gov.af/" }, { "label": "Ministry of Communications and IT of Afghanistan", "url": "https://mcit.gov.af/" } ] }, { "id": "al", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/al", "name": "Albania", "iso": "AL", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Albania has no in-force legal-practice AI rule, bar guidance, court-filing rule or reported AI citation sanction. A Draft Law On Artificial Intelligence was reported in public consultation in May 2026; data-protection and cybersecurity laws apply generally to automated processing and digital systems.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Albanian National Chamber of Advocates", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "High Court of Albania", "url": "https://www.gjykataelarte.gov.al/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Commissioner for Right to Information and Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://idp.al/?lang=en", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "National Agency for Information Society (AKSHI)", "url": "https://akshi.gov.al/?lang=en", "role": "digital-government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Law No. 124/2024 and Commissioner enforcement apply to automated processing and profiling generally. No AI-specific Commissioner guidance for legal services or lawyers was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in Albania", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/albania" }, { "label": "EY — Albania Data Protection Commissioner under new data-protection law", "url": "https://www.ey.com/en_al/insights/law/albania-data-protection-commissioner-under-the-new-data-protection-law" }, { "label": "Office of the Commissioner for Right to Information and Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://idp.al/?lang=en" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "A May 2026 Draft Law On Artificial Intelligence was reported in public consultation and aligned to the EU AI Act; CMS earlier recorded no in-force standalone AI law.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Boga & Associates — Draft Law On Artificial Intelligence in Albania", "url": "https://bogalaw.com/pdf/Newsletter%20-%20The%20Draft%20Law%20On%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20Albania.pdf" }, { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in Albania", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/albania" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in Albania", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/albania" }, { "label": "Boga & Associates — Draft Law On Artificial Intelligence in Albania", "url": "https://bogalaw.com/pdf/Newsletter%20-%20The%20Draft%20Law%20On%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20Albania.pdf" }, { "label": "EY — Albania Data Protection Commissioner under new data-protection law", "url": "https://www.ey.com/en_al/insights/law/albania-data-protection-commissioner-under-the-new-data-protection-law" }, { "label": "Office of the Commissioner for Right to Information and Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://idp.al/?lang=en" }, { "label": "National Agency for Information Society (AKSHI)", "url": "https://akshi.gov.al/?lang=en" } ] }, { "id": "dz", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/dz", "name": "Algeria", "iso": "DZ", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Algeria has no legal-practice AI rule or bar/judiciary guidance located. The Scientific Council for AI announced adoption of a draft National AI Strategy on 8 December 2024; Algeria’s personal-data authority exists under general data-protection law, but no AI-specific DPA guidance for legal services was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "National Authority for Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://anpdp.dz/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Scientific Council for Artificial Intelligence", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The ANPDP exists as Algeria’s personal-data authority, but no ANPDP guidance applying data-protection rules to AI or legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ANPDP — National Authority for Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://anpdp.dz/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Digital Policy Alert reports that Algeria’s Scientific Council for AI announced adoption of a draft National AI Strategy on 8 December 2024, with six pillars and recommended actions. No enacted AI law or justice risk classification was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Policy Alert — Algeria draft National AI Strategy", "url": "https://digitalpolicyalert.org/event/29116-algerian-government-announces-adoption-of-national-ai-strategy" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Policy Alert — Algeria draft National AI Strategy", "url": "https://digitalpolicyalert.org/event/29116-algerian-government-announces-adoption-of-national-ai-strategy" }, { "label": "ANPDP — National Authority for Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://anpdp.dz/" } ] }, { "id": "ar", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ar", "name": "Argentina", "iso": "AR", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Argentina has no national rule for lawyers; regulation is provincial and professional. Rio Negro's Superior Court extended its generative-AI protocol to lawyers in October 2025 with sanctions and bar referrals; Santa Fe and Jujuy issued judicial protocols in 2025; the Buenos Aires bar published a lawyers' AI guide in July 2025.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (CSJN)", "url": "https://www.csjn.gov.ar/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Public Bar of the Federal Capital (CPACF)", "url": "https://www.cpacf.org.ar/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Agency for Access to Public Information (AAIP)", "url": "https://www.argentina.gob.ar/aaip", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Superior Court of Justice of Rio Negro", "url": "https://www.justicia.ar/", "role": "judiciary" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No national or provincial court rule requiring parties to disclose AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026. Rio Negro's October 2025 acordada makes its good-practice protocol mandatory for lawyers but is framed around verification and responsible use, not certification.", "documents": [ "ar-rio-negro-stj-acordada-15-2024-iagen-protocol" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The Rosario Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals held in August 2025 that delegating research to AI and filing unverified citations is extremely risky and even reckless; a General Roca appeals court found 26 non-existent citations. The Rio Negro acordada of 1 October 2025 makes verification mandatory for lawyers provincially.", "documents": [ "ar-rosario-camara-giacomino-2025", "ar-rio-negro-stj-acordada-15-2024-iagen-protocol", "ar-cpacf-guia-ia-abogados-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Rosario ruling (Abogados.com.ar)", "url": "https://abogados.com.ar/la-primera-sentencia-argentina-contra-la-ia-el-riesgo-de-una-profesion-en-piloto-automatico/37412" }, { "label": "Rio Negro acordada extends the protocol to lawyers", "url": "https://justicia.ar/novedades/2029/2025/10/una-nueva-acordada-habilita-sanciones-a-la-abogacia-por-uso-indebido-de-inteligencia-artificial" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "There is no national rule. Provincial protocols bind their own judiciaries: the Rio Negro generative-AI good-practice protocol of October 2024, Santa Fe Circular 25 of 4 April 2025 for judges and defenders given generative-AI access, and Jujuy Acordada 31/2025 of 11 April 2025 with its protocol and authorisation form.", "documents": [ "ar-rio-negro-stj-acordada-15-2024-iagen-protocol", "ar-santa-fe-csj-circular-25-2025", "ar-jujuy-scj-acordada-31-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Rio Negro AI initiatives", "url": "https://www.justicia.ar/iniciativas/inteligencia-artificial" }, { "label": "Santa Fe Circular 25", "url": "https://www.justiciasantafe.gov.ar/index.php/circulares/circular-nro-25-guia-de-buenas-practicas-para-el-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-generativa/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Santa Fe Circular 25 of April 2025: AI is complementary, decisions remain the exclusive responsibility of judges and AI cannot replace judicial reasoning. The Rio Negro protocol requires human control at every stage. There is no national rule.", "documents": [ "ar-santa-fe-csj-circular-25-2025", "ar-rio-negro-stj-acordada-15-2024-iagen-protocol" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Santa Fe Circular 25", "url": "https://www.justiciasantafe.gov.ar/index.php/circulares/circular-nro-25-guia-de-buenas-practicas-para-el-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-generativa/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented parties found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Buenos Aires bar guide of July 2025: do not upload client data to platforms without security guarantees, respect professional secrecy, and obtain client authorisation before sharing personal, sensitive or confidential information.", "documents": [ "ar-cpacf-guia-ia-abogados-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CPACF guide (PDF via Microjuris)", "url": "https://aldiaargentina.microjuris.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CPACF-IA-GUIA.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Buenos Aires bar guide of July 2025 calls for continuous training and prompt-writing skills, and states that the lawyer remains the ultimate party responsible for the content presented or signed, whether or not it was generated by AI. The ethics code has not been amended.", "documents": [ "ar-cpacf-guia-ia-abogados-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CPACF guide (PDF via Microjuris)", "url": "https://aldiaargentina.microjuris.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CPACF-IA-GUIA.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervision of AI-assisted work within firms found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Buenos Aires bar guide of July 2025, objective 2: be transparent with clients, explain when AI tools are used and seek authorisation before sharing any personal information; do not create false expectations.", "documents": [ "ar-cpacf-guia-ia-abogados-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CPACF guide (PDF via Microjuris)", "url": "https://aldiaargentina.microjuris.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CPACF-IA-GUIA.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026. One 2025 court reportedly denied fees for a brief with AI-fabricated citations, but that is a sanction rather than a billing rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Buenos Aires bar's Guide for the Use of AI for Lawyers, published in July 2025 by its fintech and legaltech laboratory, sets four pillars: responsible use, permanent human control, data protection and confidentiality, and continuous training, with an explicit warning on hallucinations and non-delegation of decisions.", "documents": [ "ar-cpacf-guia-ia-abogados-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CPACF guide (PDF via Microjuris)", "url": "https://aldiaargentina.microjuris.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CPACF-IA-GUIA.pdf" }, { "label": "Launch report (Microjuris)", "url": "https://aldiaargentina.microjuris.com/2025/08/06/actualidad-el-cpacf-presento-una-guia-para-el-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-para-abogados/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Acordada 10/2025 authorised AI-generated plain-language summaries of all judgments published through the federal case system, with more than 110,000 summaries by October 2025. Provincial deployments in Santa Fe and Rio Negro are governed by their own acordadas.", "documents": [ "ar-csjn-acordada-10-2025-ai-summaries", "ar-santa-fe-csj-circular-25-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CSJN: AI summaries under Acordada 10/2025", "url": "https://www.csjn.gov.ar/novedades/detalle/11349" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The access-to-information agency's guide for public and private entities on transparency and personal-data protection for responsible AI covers privacy by design, impact assessment, bias testing, traceability and complaint channels across the AI lifecycle. It is not legal-sector specific.", "documents": [ "ar-aaip-guia-ia-responsable-2024" ], "sources": [ { "label": "AAIP guide (Argentina.gob.ar)", "url": "https://www.argentina.gob.ar/noticias/guia-de-la-aaip-para-usar-la-inteligencia-artificial-de-manera-responsable" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No horizontal AI statute is in force. Several bills have been introduced in Congress but none could be verified within the research window.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The Rosario appeals court issued a warning and referred the lawyer to the Rosario bar in August 2025; a General Roca appeals court found 26 fabricated citations; a Neuquen court referred a lawyer to the Cutral Co bar. The Rio Negro acordada of 1 October 2025 authorises corrective sanctions and mandatory referral to bar ethics tribunals.", "documents": [ "ar-rosario-camara-giacomino-2025", "ar-rio-negro-stj-acordada-15-2024-iagen-protocol" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Rosario ruling (Abogados.com.ar)", "url": "https://abogados.com.ar/la-primera-sentencia-argentina-contra-la-ia-el-riesgo-de-una-profesion-en-piloto-automatico/37412" }, { "label": "Neuquen referral (LM Neuquen)", "url": "https://www.lmneuquen.com/neuquen/un-abogado-neuquino-se-paso-rosca-la-ia-y-le-dieron-un-fuerte-castigo-n1236839" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No Argentine arbitral institution AI rules found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026; the Buenos Aires bar offers voluntary courses.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No procurement or vendor due-diligence guidance for legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Rio Negro acordada extending the AI protocol to lawyers", "url": "https://justicia.ar/novedades/2029/2025/10/una-nueva-acordada-habilita-sanciones-a-la-abogacia-por-uso-indebido-de-inteligencia-artificial" }, { "label": "CPACF AI guide for lawyers (PDF)", "url": "https://aldiaargentina.microjuris.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/CPACF-IA-GUIA.pdf" }, { "label": "Santa Fe Circular 25", "url": "https://www.justiciasantafe.gov.ar/index.php/circulares/circular-nro-25-guia-de-buenas-practicas-para-el-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-generativa/" }, { "label": "Jujuy Acordada 31/2025", "url": "https://www.justiciajujuy.gov.ar/acordadas/acordada-n-31-2025-protocolo-para-el-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-en-el-poder-judicial/" }, { "label": "CSJN AI summaries (Acordada 10/2025)", "url": "https://www.csjn.gov.ar/novedades/detalle/11349" }, { "label": "Rosario Giacomino c/ Monserrat (Abogados.com.ar)", "url": "https://abogados.com.ar/la-primera-sentencia-argentina-contra-la-ia-el-riesgo-de-una-profesion-en-piloto-automatico/37412" }, { "label": "AAIP responsible-AI guide", "url": "https://www.argentina.gob.ar/noticias/guia-de-la-aaip-para-usar-la-inteligencia-artificial-de-manera-responsable" } ] }, { "id": "am", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/am", "name": "Armenia", "iso": "AM", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Armenia has no domestic AI Act, court rule, bar guidance or legal-practice AI case located. Armenia signed the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention on 27 January 2026; accessible official material otherwise describes the need for AI strategy rather than adopted legal-practice obligations.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Chamber of Advocates of Armenia", "url": "https://advocates.am/en/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Judicial Department / court portal", "url": "https://www.court.am/en", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Agency", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of High-Tech Industry", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Armenia has a personal-data regulator, but no AI-specific data-protection guidance for legal services was located in accessible sources.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Armenia signed the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention on 27 January 2026. No ratification, domestic AI law, AI regulator or adopted risk-classification framework was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Council of Europe — Armenia signs AI Framework Convention", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/-/armenia-signs-the-council-of-europe-s-framework-convention-on-artificial-intelligence-1" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Council of Europe — Armenia signs AI Framework Convention", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/-/armenia-signs-the-council-of-europe-s-framework-convention-on-artificial-intelligence-1" }, { "label": "Government of Armenia — Artificial Intelligence Strategy for Armenia", "url": "https://www.gov.am/en/news/item/9940/" }, { "label": "Chamber of Advocates of Armenia", "url": "https://advocates.am/en/" }, { "label": "Judicial portal of Armenia", "url": "https://www.court.am/en" } ] }, { "id": "au", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/au", "name": "Australia", "iso": "AU", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Australia has the densest court-level AI rulebook outside the United States: binding practice notes in the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court, NSW, Victoria and Queensland and several tribunals, plus judicial guidelines and a joint regulator statement. There is no AI statute; the profession is governed through conduct rules and costs sanctions.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Federal Court of Australia", "url": "https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia", "url": "https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Law Council of Australia", "url": "https://lawcouncil.au/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Law Society of New South Wales", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.com.au/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Queensland Law Society", "url": "https://www.qls.com.au/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner (VLSB+C)", "url": "https://lsbc.vic.gov.au/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Legal Practice Board of Western Australia", "url": "https://www.lpbwa.org.au/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)", "url": "https://www.oaic.gov.au/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR)", "url": "https://www.industry.gov.au/", "role": "government" } ], "jurisdiction": "australia", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Court-ordered or automatic disclosure in most jurisdictions. NSW SC Gen 23 requires affidavits and witness statements to state that Gen AI was not used; GPN-AI and Victoria's SC GEN 25 let the court direct a party to disclose or identify AI-produced parts; Queensland's PD 5 of 2025 requires a named responsible person on every submission.", "documents": [ "nsw-sc-gen-23-generative-ai", "nsw-local-court-generative-ai-practice-note", "au-federal-court-gpn-ai", "au-fcfcoa-pd-ai", "vic-sc-gen-25-ai-court-users", "au-qld-sc-pd-5-2025-accuracy-of-references", "au-ncat-procedural-direction-7-generative-ai", "au-nsw-pic-procedural-direction-13-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NSW Supreme Court — Practice Note SC Gen 23 (official PDF)", "url": "https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_SC_Gen_23.pdf" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of Queensland — Practice Direction 5 of 2025 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/882064/sc-pd-5-pf-2025.pdf" }, { "label": "Federal Court of Australia — GPN-AI", "url": "https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Universal. Every Australian instrument imposes a personal duty to verify citations and evidence references. NCAT PD 7 and Victoria's SC GEN 25 add that verification must not be carried out with another AI tool. Western Australia's guidelines require a human who takes legal responsibility for the document.", "documents": [ "nsw-sc-gen-23-generative-ai", "au-federal-court-gpn-ai", "au-fcfcoa-pd-ai", "vic-sc-gen-25-ai-court-users", "sa-courts-generative-ai-litigation-guidelines", "qld-courts-generative-ai-guidelines-non-lawyers", "au-qld-sc-pd-5-2025-accuracy-of-references", "au-ncat-procedural-direction-7-generative-ai", "au-wa-supreme-court-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NCAT Procedural Direction 7 (official PDF, cl 16-17)", "url": "https://ncat.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/dcj/ctsd/ncat/documents/procedural-directions/ncat-pd7-use-of-generative-ai.pdf" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of WA — Guidelines for the use of generative AI (official PDF, cl 7-8)", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/_files/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of Queensland — PD 5 of 2025 (official PDF, cl 9-13)", "url": "https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/882064/sc-pd-5-pf-2025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Chief Justice of NSW issued Guidelines for New South Wales Judges on 21 November 2024, applying to all NSW courts. Victoria's Supreme Court issued judicial guidelines on 14 May 2026 and Queensland Courts publish guidelines for judicial officers. All require verification and bar entry of case material into public tools.", "documents": [ "au-nsw-judges-generative-ai-guidelines", "vic-supreme-court-judicial-ai-guidelines", "au-qld-courts-judicial-officers-genai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NSW — Generative AI Practice Note and Judicial Guidelines (official PDF, 21 Nov 2024)", "url": "https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_Generative_AI_21112024.pdf" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of Victoria — judicial guidelines announcement", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/news/new-practice-note-and-judicial-guidelines-on-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NSW judicial guidelines cl 4-5: judges must not use Gen AI to formulate reasons for judgment or to assess or analyse evidence, and no part of a draft judgment may be submitted to a Gen AI program. Victoria's judicial guidelines bar Gen AI from decision-making and judgment reasoning.", "documents": [ "au-nsw-judges-generative-ai-guidelines", "vic-supreme-court-judicial-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Guidelines for New South Wales Judges (official PDF, cl 4-5)", "url": "https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_Generative_AI_21112024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "qld-courts-generative-ai-guidelines-non-lawyers", "vic-supreme-court-litigant-ai-guidelines-2024", "sa-courts-generative-ai-litigation-guidelines", "nsw-local-court-generative-ai-practice-note", "au-ncat-procedural-direction-7-generative-ai", "au-qld-sc-pd-5-2025-accuracy-of-references", "au-wa-supreme-court-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Queensland — PD 5 of 2025, cl 15-17", "url": "https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/882064/sc-pd-5-pf-2025.pdf" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of WA — Guidelines for the use of generative AI", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/_files/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "binding", "note": "Affidavits, witness statements and character references must be the maker's own words; Gen AI must not generate their content (NSW SC Gen 23, NCAT PD 7, PIC PD 13). Queensland SC PD 14 of 2024 requires expert reports in criminal proceedings to name the Gen AI program and annex complete prompt and output records.", "documents": [ "nsw-sc-gen-23-generative-ai", "vic-sc-gen-25-ai-court-users", "au-qld-sc-pd-14-2024-expert-evidence-genai", "au-ncat-procedural-direction-7-generative-ai", "au-nsw-pic-procedural-direction-13-generative-ai", "au-wa-supreme-court-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Queensland — PD 14 of 2024, cl (l) (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/797050/scpd-14-of-2024.pdf" }, { "label": "NCAT Procedural Direction 7, cl 12-15", "url": "https://ncat.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/dcj/ctsd/ncat/documents/procedural-directions/ncat-pd7-use-of-generative-ai.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The December 2024 joint statement of the VLSB+C, Law Society of NSW and Legal Practice Board of WA says confidential client information must not be entered into public AI tools. NSW SC Gen 23, NCAT PD 7 and PIC PD 13 add a binding prohibition on entering suppressed, non-publication or summonsed material.", "documents": [ "au-joint-statement-ai-legal-practice", "qls-guidance-statement-37-ai", "law-society-nsw-solicitors-guide-responsible-ai", "au-ncat-procedural-direction-7-generative-ai", "au-nsw-pic-procedural-direction-13-generative-ai", "au-wa-supreme-court-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "VLSB+C / LS NSW / LPBWA joint statement (official PDF)", "url": "https://lsbc.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-12/Statement%20on%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20in%20Australian%20legal%20practice_2.pdf" }, { "label": "NCAT Procedural Direction 7, cl 9", "url": "https://ncat.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/dcj/ctsd/ncat/documents/procedural-directions/ncat-pd7-use-of-generative-ai.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No AI-specific competence rule; the Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules are applied through guidance. QLS Guidance Statement No. 37 and the Law Society of NSW guide require solicitors to understand the tools they use. Queensland PD 5 of 2025 ties verification to conduct rules 3, 4, 5, 17, 19 and 37.", "documents": [ "qls-guidance-statement-37-ai", "law-society-nsw-solicitors-guide-responsible-ai", "au-joint-statement-ai-legal-practice", "au-qld-sc-pd-5-2025-accuracy-of-references" ], "sources": [ { "label": "QLS Guidance Statement No. 37", "url": "https://www.qls.com.au/practising-law-in-qld/ethics/guidance-statements/no-37-artificial-intelligence-in-legal-practice" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Principals must supervise employees' AI use and set firm policies (QLS GS 37; Law Society of NSW guide; joint regulator statement). NSW judicial guidelines cl 8 require associates, tipstaves and researchers to disclose Gen AI use to the judge and to verify output separately.", "documents": [ "qls-guidance-statement-37-ai", "law-society-nsw-solicitors-guide-responsible-ai", "au-joint-statement-ai-legal-practice", "au-nsw-judges-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Guidelines for New South Wales Judges, cl 8", "url": "https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_Generative_AI_21112024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No consent requirement. The joint regulator statement says clients should be told about AI use where it is relevant to the engagement or to costs; QLS GS 37 and the Law Society of NSW guide say the same. No court rule requires disclosure to clients.", "documents": [ "au-joint-statement-ai-legal-practice", "qls-guidance-statement-37-ai", "law-society-nsw-solicitors-guide-responsible-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "VLSB+C / LS NSW / LPBWA joint statement", "url": "https://lsbc.vic.gov.au/news-updates/news/statement-use-artificial-intelligence-australian-legal-practice" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Handled through costs-disclosure obligations rather than a dedicated rule: the joint regulator statement tells practitioners to inform clients where AI use is relevant to costs. No Australian ethics ruling on charging for AI-assisted time was found.", "documents": [ "au-joint-statement-ai-legal-practice" ], "sources": [ { "label": "VLSB+C / LS NSW / LPBWA joint statement (PDF)", "url": "https://lsbc.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-12/Statement%20on%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20in%20Australian%20legal%20practice_2.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "The Legal Profession Uniform Law prohibits unqualified legal practice, but no Australian ruling, regulator decision or guidance applying it to consumer AI legal products was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Dense. A joint statement of three regulators (6 December 2024), QLS Guidance Statement No. 37 (31 May 2024) and a QLS AI checklist, and the Law Society of NSW's Solicitor's Guide to Responsible Use of AI (9 January 2026), which also runs a court-protocols hub tracking every Australian court instrument.", "documents": [ "au-joint-statement-ai-legal-practice", "qls-guidance-statement-37-ai", "law-society-nsw-solicitors-guide-responsible-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of NSW — AI hub, court protocols on AI", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.com.au/AI-hub/court-protocols-ai" }, { "label": "Law Society of NSW — Solicitor's guide (PDF, Jan 2026)", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.com.au/sites/default/files/2026-01/20260109%20LS4816_PSU_GuidetoAI_2026-01-08a%20FINALv2.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Addressed inside the judicial guidelines rather than a standalone deployment policy: NSW guidelines govern associates, tipstaves and researchers; Victoria's judicial guidelines cover chambers staff and require the judicial officer to verify any administrative AI output. No published court procurement or deployment policy was found.", "documents": [ "au-nsw-judges-generative-ai-guidelines", "vic-supreme-court-judicial-ai-guidelines", "au-qld-courts-judicial-officers-genai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Guidelines for New South Wales Judges, cl 8", "url": "https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_Generative_AI_21112024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OAIC guidance on privacy and the use of commercially available AI products (21 October 2024, updated 17 January 2025) applies the Australian Privacy Principles to AI inputs and outputs, requires product due diligence and accuracy steps, and advises against entering personal information into publicly available generative AI tools.", "documents": [ "au-oaic-guidance-commercially-available-ai-products" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OAIC — Guidance on privacy and the use of commercially available AI products", "url": "https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-guidance-for-organisations-and-government-agencies/guidance-on-privacy-and-the-use-of-commercially-available-ai-products" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No horizontal AI statute. DISR consulted in September 2024 on mandatory guardrails for AI in high-risk settings alongside a Voluntary AI Safety Standard; nothing had been legislated as at 4 September 2026. Justice and legal services are not separately risk-classified in Australian law.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DISR — consultation on mandatory guardrails for AI in high-risk settings", "url": "https://consult.industry.gov.au/ai-mandatory-guardrails" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The largest body of AI-citation case law outside the United States (110 Australian decisions in the Charlotin database at 4 September 2026). Courts use personal costs orders and referral to regulators: Valu (No 2), Dayal (VLSB+C practising-certificate conditions), JNE24 (AUD 8,371 personal costs), Asif (AUD 9,098 against a litigant).", "documents": [ "nsw-sc-gen-23-generative-ai", "au-qld-sc-pd-5-2025-accuracy-of-references" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Valu v Minister for Immigration (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 95 (AustLII)", "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC2G/2025/95.html" }, { "label": "JNE24 v Minister for Immigration [2025] FedCFamC2G 1314 (AustLII)", "url": "https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FedCFamC2G/2025/1314.html" }, { "label": "VLSB+C — statement on the Dayal matter", "url": "https://lsbc.vic.gov.au/news-updates/news/statement-mr-dayal-matter" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No ACICA, Resolution Institute or equivalent Australian arbitration AI guideline was located before the search budget was exhausted; NCAT PD 7 and PIC PD 13 cover tribunal, not arbitral, proceedings.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI-specific CPD requirement found in any Australian jurisdiction as of 4 September 2026. Law societies (Tasmania, Queensland, New South Wales, ACT) offer voluntary AI CPD and resource hubs, and QLS frames AI awareness as part of maintaining competence.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of Tasmania — AI in legal practice (CPD programme)", "url": "https://lst.org.au/in-practice/artificial-intelligence-ai-in-legal-practice/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society of NSW guide tells firms to select tools with appropriate data protections; QLS publishes an AI checklist developed with the ACT, NT and Tasmanian law societies for firms assessing third-party AI vendors; OAIC guidance requires due diligence before deploying a commercial AI product.", "documents": [ "law-society-nsw-solicitors-guide-responsible-ai", "qls-guidance-statement-37-ai", "au-oaic-guidance-commercially-available-ai-products" ], "sources": [ { "label": "QLS — new AI checklist for legal practitioners", "url": "https://www.qls.com.au/news-media-advocacy/qls-releases-new-ai-checklist-for-legal-practitioners" }, { "label": "OAIC — guidance on commercially available AI products", "url": "https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-guidance-for-organisations-and-government-agencies/guidance-on-privacy-and-the-use-of-commercially-available-ai-products" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [ { "name": "New South Wales", "code": "AU-NSW", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "SC Gen 23 requires affidavits, witness statements and character references to carry an express statement that Gen AI was not used to create their content; NCAT PD 7 and PIC PD 13 apply the same model in the tribunals.", "documents": [ "nsw-sc-gen-23-generative-ai", "nsw-local-court-generative-ai-practice-note", "au-ncat-procedural-direction-7-generative-ai", "au-nsw-pic-procedural-direction-13-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NSW Supreme Court — generative AI page", "url": "https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/practice-procedure/generative-artificial-intelligence.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Where Gen AI assisted written submissions, the author must verify in the body of the submissions that all citations, authorities and legislative references exist and are accurate, and that verification must not itself be done with an AI tool.", "documents": [ "nsw-sc-gen-23-generative-ai", "au-ncat-procedural-direction-7-generative-ai", "au-nsw-pic-procedural-direction-13-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NCAT PD 7 (PDF)", "url": "https://ncat.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/dcj/ctsd/ncat/documents/procedural-directions/ncat-pd7-use-of-generative-ai.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Guidelines for New South Wales Judges of 21 November 2024 apply to every NSW court and to associates, tipstaves and research staff.", "documents": [ "au-nsw-judges-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Judges must not use Gen AI to formulate reasons for judgment or to assess evidence, and no part of a draft judgment may be submitted to a Gen AI program.", "documents": [ "au-nsw-judges-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "binding", "note": "Sworn and affirmed material must be in the maker's own words. PIC PD 13 goes further, requiring experts to disclose AI use, program and version and to keep prompt records, and barring AI transcription during hearings.", "documents": [ "nsw-sc-gen-23-generative-ai", "au-ncat-procedural-direction-7-generative-ai", "au-nsw-pic-procedural-direction-13-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Personal Injury Commission — Procedural Direction PIC13", "url": "https://www.pi.nsw.gov.au/resources/procedural-directions/procedural-direction-pic13-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "Material subject to non-publication or non-disclosure orders, statutory publication restrictions, or produced under summons must not be entered into any Gen AI program unless the platform is contractually closed and does not train on the data.", "documents": [ "nsw-sc-gen-23-generative-ai", "au-ncat-procedural-direction-7-generative-ai", "au-nsw-pic-procedural-direction-13-generative-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society of NSW published A Solicitor's Guide to Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence on 9 January 2026 and maintains the national court-protocols tracker.", "documents": [ "law-society-nsw-solicitors-guide-responsible-ai", "au-joint-statement-ai-legal-practice" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of NSW — AI hub, court protocols on AI", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.com.au/AI-hub/court-protocols-ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Practice Note 33 of the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW was applied in Shahin (No 2) [2026] NSWIRComm 11, one of a growing line of NSW decisions on fabricated citations.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Shahin v Industrial Relations Secretary (No 2) [2026] NSWIRComm 11", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2989/Shahin_v_Industrial_Relations_Secretary_No.2_2026_NSWIRComm_11_21_July_2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The strictest AI regime in Australia. Practice Note SC Gen 23 (issued 21 November 2024, in force 3 February 2025, with associated UCPR amendments) prohibits Gen AI in the content of affidavits, witness statements and character references, requires an express statement that Gen AI was not used, and bars Gen AI in expert reports without leave. It has been copied down the court hierarchy: District Court General Practice Note 2, Land and Environment Court (12 February 2025), Local Court practice note (12 January 2026), NCAT Procedural Direction 7 (issued 7 March 2025, commenced 7 April 2025) and Personal Injury Commission PD 13 (1 January 2026). Judicial guidelines for all NSW judges issued the same day as SC Gen 23." }, { "name": "Victoria", "code": "AU-VIC", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Under SC GEN 25 the court may direct a party to disclose whether AI was used and to identify which parts of a document it produced.", "documents": [ "vic-sc-gen-25-ai-court-users" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Victoria — SC GEN 25", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/legal-resources/practice-notes/sc-gen-25-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-by-court-users" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "SC GEN 25 requires meaningful human control over AI-assisted material and forbids verifying the output of one AI tool with another.", "documents": [ "vic-sc-gen-25-ai-court-users" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Judicial Guidelines on the Use of Artificial Intelligence, issued 14 May 2026, cover judicial officers and chambers staff and require the judicial officer to verify any administrative AI output.", "documents": [ "vic-supreme-court-judicial-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Victorian judicial guidelines bar generative AI from decision-making and from the reasoning of judgments.", "documents": [ "vic-supreme-court-judicial-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "binding", "note": "SC GEN 25 applies to all court users; the superseded May 2024 guidelines for litigants remain the model for the County Court's own litigant guidance.", "documents": [ "vic-sc-gen-25-ai-court-users", "vic-supreme-court-litigant-ai-guidelines-2024" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The VLSB+C co-signed the December 2024 joint regulator statement on AI in Australian legal practice.", "documents": [ "au-joint-statement-ai-legal-practice" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The VLSB+C imposed conditions on a practitioner's practising certificate in the Dayal matter, the leading Australian regulator response to AI-fabricated citations.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "VLSB+C — statement on the Dayal matter", "url": "https://lsbc.vic.gov.au/news-updates/news/statement-mr-dayal-matter" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Practice Note SC GEN 25 (14 May 2026) replaced the May 2024 litigant guidelines: meaningful human control over AI-assisted material, no verifying one AI tool with another, sworn documents in the deponent's own words, and the court may direct a party to identify AI-produced passages. Judicial Guidelines issued the same day bar Gen AI from decision-making and judgment reasoning. The County Court publishes litigant guidelines mirroring the Supreme Court. The VLSB+C is the regulator, co-signed the December 2024 joint statement and imposed the practising-certificate conditions in the Dayal matter." }, { "name": "Queensland", "code": "AU-QLD", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "PD 5 of 2025 requires every written submission to name the individual responsible for its contents; naming a firm is not sufficient. QCAT Practice Direction 10 of 2025 mirrors it for tribunal submissions.", "documents": [ "au-qld-sc-pd-5-2025-accuracy-of-references" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Queensland — PD 5 of 2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/882064/sc-pd-5-pf-2025.pdf" }, { "label": "QCAT — PD 10 of 2025, accuracy of references in submissions (PDF)", "url": "https://www.qcat.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/884940/qcat-practice-direction-10-of-2025-accuracy-of-references-in-submissions.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Naming oneself as the responsible person certifies that the accuracy and relevance of every reference to legislation, authority or other source has been verified.", "documents": [ "au-qld-sc-pd-5-2025-accuracy-of-references" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Queensland Courts publish companion generative-AI guidelines for judicial officers; the document could not be opened in this research pass.", "documents": [ "au-qld-courts-judicial-officers-genai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Queensland Courts published guidelines for responsible use of generative AI by non-lawyers in May 2024; PD 5 of 2025 tells self-represented litigants to check references against AustLII, Queensland Judgments and the official legislation sites.", "documents": [ "qld-courts-generative-ai-guidelines-non-lawyers", "au-qld-sc-pd-5-2025-accuracy-of-references" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "binding", "note": "PD 14 of 2024 requires expert reports in criminal proceedings to name any generative AI program used and to annex complete records of the prompts and of the outputs.", "documents": [ "au-qld-sc-pd-14-2024-expert-evidence-genai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Queensland — PD 14 of 2024 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/797050/scpd-14-of-2024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Queensland Law Society Guidance Statement No. 37 (31 May 2024) and a QLS AI checklist developed with the ACT, NT and Tasmanian law societies serve the profession.", "documents": [ "qls-guidance-statement-37-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "binding", "note": "PD 5 of 2025 provides that practitioners responsible for submissions containing non-existent material may be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner or required to show cause against a personal costs order.", "documents": [ "au-qld-sc-pd-5-2025-accuracy-of-references" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "A distinctive responsible-person model rather than an AI-specific prohibition. Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025 (Chief Justice Bowskill, 24 September 2025) requires every written submission to name the individual practitioner responsible, who thereby certifies that citations have been verified; fake citations may lead to referral to the Legal Services Commissioner or personal costs. It expressly cites Ayinde v Haringey. QCAT Practice Direction 10 of 2025 mirrors it. PD 14 of 2024 (from 15 July 2024) requires expert reports in criminal proceedings to name any Gen AI program and annex complete prompt and output records. Queensland Courts publish separate guidelines for non-lawyers (May 2024) and for judicial officers." }, { "name": "Western Australia", "code": "AU-WA", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "AI use must be disclosed when the court directs, and generative AI must not be used to mislead the court about the work undertaken. There is no automatic disclosure requirement.", "documents": [ "au-wa-supreme-court-generative-ai-guidelines", "au-wa-supreme-court-ai-practice-direction-consultation" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of WA — AI practice direction consultation note (PDF)", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/_files/AI_practice_direction.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "AI-generated content relied on in proceedings must be verified by a human who takes legal responsibility for the document; that a document was AI-assisted is no answer to errors or omissions.", "documents": [ "au-wa-supreme-court-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of WA — Guidelines for the use of generative AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/_files/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The guidelines address self-represented litigants alongside lawyers and expert witnesses on the same principles-based terms.", "documents": [ "au-wa-supreme-court-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Affidavits and witness statements must be in the witness's own words; expert reports must comply with the Harmonised Expert Witness Code of Conduct and experts should consider disclosing AI use.", "documents": [ "au-wa-supreme-court-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Confidential, suppressed or legally privileged information must not be entered into public or unsecured generative AI tools.", "documents": [ "au-wa-supreme-court-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Legal Practice Board of WA co-signed the December 2024 joint regulator statement and publishes AI guidance to safeguard consumers of legal services.", "documents": [ "au-joint-statement-ai-legal-practice" ], "sources": [ { "label": "LPBWA — AI guidance to safeguard consumers of legal services", "url": "https://www.lpbwa.org.au/ai-guidance-to-safeguard-consumers-of-legal-services" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The Supreme Court of WA consulted on an AI practice direction from early 2025 (consultation note; Law Society of WA submission 11 April 2025 urging a principles-based rather than prohibitive approach) and then published principles-based Guidelines for the use of generative AI rather than a practice direction. The guidelines cover lawyers, self-represented litigants and expert witnesses. The Legal Practice Board of WA co-signed the December 2024 joint regulator statement and received the JNE24 referral." }, { "name": "South Australia", "code": "AU-SA", "categories": { "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The guidelines require parties and practitioners to verify AI-generated content before it is relied on in litigation.", "documents": [ "sa-courts-generative-ai-litigation-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts Administration Authority of SA — guidelines announcement (24 Dec 2025)", "url": "https://www.courts.sa.gov.au/2025/12/24/guidelines-concerning-the-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-litigation-in-south-australian-courts/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "guidance", "note": "An information sheet for self-represented litigants accompanies the guidelines.", "documents": [ "sa-courts-generative-ai-litigation-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts Administration Authority of SA — Supreme Court issues guidelines (19 Jan 2026)", "url": "https://www.courts.sa.gov.au/2026/01/19/supreme-court-issues-guidelines-for-the-use-of-generative-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The guidelines require confidential material to be protected from entry into generative AI tools.", "documents": [ "sa-courts-generative-ai-litigation-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Guidelines concerning the use of generative artificial intelligence in litigation in South Australian courts, published 24 December 2025 and adopted from 1 January 2026 after a survey by then Chief Justice Kourakis in May 2025. They apply across the Supreme, District, Magistrates, Youth, Environment Resources and Development Courts and the Court of Disputed Returns, require verification and protection of confidential material, and are accompanied by an information sheet for self-represented litigants; the Uniform Rules are to be amended to give them effect." }, { "name": "Tasmania", "code": "AU-TAS", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Tasmanian court instrument on generative AI is listed on the national court-protocols tracker as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of NSW — court protocols on AI (national tracker, no Tasmanian entry)", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.com.au/AI-hub/court-protocols-ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society of Tasmania runs an AI programme comprising a vendor risk checklist and a CPD series, and frames staying informed about AI as part of professional competence.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of Tasmania — Artificial Intelligence (AI) in legal practice", "url": "https://lst.org.au/in-practice/artificial-intelligence-ai-in-legal-practice/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "The Society's CPD series on ethical AI use is voluntary; there is no mandatory AI training requirement.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society of Tasmania co-developed the AI risk checklist for small and mid-tier firms selecting third-party AI vendors with the Queensland, ACT and NT law societies.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "QLS — AI checklist developed with the ACT, NT and Tasmanian law societies", "url": "https://www.qls.com.au/news-media-advocacy/qls-releases-new-ai-checklist-for-legal-practitioners" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No Tasmanian court practice direction or guideline on generative AI was found as of 4 September 2026; the Law Society of NSW court-protocols hub, which tracks every Australian court instrument, lists none for Tasmania. The Law Society of Tasmania runs an AI programme for practitioners: an AI risk checklist for small and mid-tier firms selecting third-party AI vendors (developed with the QLS and the ACT and NT law societies) plus a continuing CPD series on ethical AI use, and it frames staying informed about AI as part of professional competence." }, { "name": "Australian Capital Territory", "code": "AU-ACT", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No ACT court instrument on generative AI is listed on the national court-protocols tracker as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of NSW — court protocols on AI (national tracker, no ACT entry)", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.com.au/AI-hub/court-protocols-ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society of the ACT advises members to be transparent with clients about how generative AI was used on their matter. There is no consent requirement.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of the ACT — Use of AI in legal practice", "url": "https://www.actlawsociety.asn.au/article/use-of-ai-in-legal-practice" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society of the ACT maintains an AI resource hub for practitioners and publishes guidance on the use of AI in legal practice.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of the ACT — AI resource hub", "url": "https://actlawsociety.asn.au/practising-law/AI-resource-hub" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society of the ACT co-developed the Queensland Law Society AI checklist for practitioners assessing third-party AI vendors.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "QLS — AI checklist developed with the ACT, NT and Tasmanian law societies", "url": "https://www.qls.com.au/news-media-advocacy/qls-releases-new-ai-checklist-for-legal-practitioners" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No ACT court practice direction or guideline on generative AI was found as of 4 September 2026 and none is listed on the national court-protocols tracker. The Law Society of the ACT maintains an AI resource hub for practitioners and co-developed the QLS AI checklist; it advises members to be transparent with clients about how generative AI was used and to monitor court, regulator and Society updates. Practitioners are governed by the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT) and the ACT solicitors' conduct rules." }, { "name": "Northern Territory", "code": "AU-NT", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Northern Territory court instrument on generative AI is listed on the national court-protocols tracker as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of NSW — court protocols on AI (national tracker, no NT entry)", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.com.au/AI-hub/court-protocols-ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Law Society NT generative-AI guidance of its own was located; its contribution is to the joint QLS checklist.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society NT co-developed the Queensland Law Society AI checklist for legal practitioners assessing third-party AI vendors.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "QLS — AI checklist developed with the ACT, NT and Tasmanian law societies", "url": "https://www.qls.com.au/news-media-advocacy/qls-releases-new-ai-checklist-for-legal-practitioners" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No Northern Territory court practice direction or guideline on generative AI was found as of 4 September 2026 and none is listed on the national court-protocols tracker. The Law Society NT co-developed the Queensland Law Society AI checklist for legal practitioners with the ACT and Tasmanian societies. Caution: searches for Law Society NT generative AI guidelines surface the Law Society of the Northwest Territories (Canada) guidelines of January 2025, a different body whose work must not be attributed to Australia." } ], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Federal Court of Australia — Generative AI Practice Note GPN-AI", "url": "https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-ai" }, { "label": "NSW Supreme Court — Practice Note SC Gen 23 and Guidelines for NSW Judges (PDF)", "url": "https://supremecourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/Practice-and-Procedure/Practice-Notes/general/current/PN_Generative_AI_21112024.pdf" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of Victoria — Practice Note SC GEN 25", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/areas/legal-resources/practice-notes/sc-gen-25-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence-by-court-users" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of Queensland — Practice Direction 5 of 2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/882064/sc-pd-5-pf-2025.pdf" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of Western Australia — Guidelines for the use of generative AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/_files/Guidelines%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20Generative%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf" }, { "label": "VLSB+C / LS NSW / LPBWA — joint statement on AI in Australian legal practice (PDF)", "url": "https://lsbc.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-12/Statement%20on%20the%20use%20of%20AI%20in%20Australian%20legal%20practice_2.pdf" }, { "label": "OAIC — Guidance on privacy and the use of commercially available AI products", "url": "https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/privacy-guidance-for-organisations-and-government-agencies/guidance-on-privacy-and-the-use-of-commercially-available-ai-products" }, { "label": "Law Society of NSW — court protocols on AI (national tracker)", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.com.au/AI-hub/court-protocols-ai" } ] }, { "id": "at", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/at", "name": "Austria", "iso": "AT", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Austria has the strictest vendor rule in this group. The OERAK's Kuenstliche Intelligenz in Anwaltskanzleien, of September 2025, applies section 9(2) RAO confidentiality and the binding section 40(3) RL-BA service-provider requirements to AI suppliers, with a checklist the provider must sign. No Austrian court rule was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Austrian Bar (Österreichischer Rechtsanwaltskammertag, ÖRAK)", "url": "https://www.oerak.at/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "AI Service Centre at the media and telecoms regulator (KI-Servicestelle, RTR)", "url": "https://www.rtr.at/rtr/service/ki-servicestelle/ki-servicestelle.de.html", "role": "ai-act contact point" }, { "name": "Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde)", "url": "https://www.dsb.gv.at/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Austrian court rule or Erlass requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ÖRAK Leitfaden: because AI systems can produce fabricated information, 'die anwaltliche Sorgfaltspflicht erfordert daher eine ausnahmslose Überprüfung und Verifizierung aller KI-generierten Ergebnisse'; final responsibility for every legal statement remains with the lawyer, and staff must be instructed never to adopt AI-generated text, legal reasoning or sources unchecked.", "documents": [ "at-oerak-ki-leitfaden-anwaltskanzleien" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ÖRAK — Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) in Anwaltskanzleien, Stand September 2025 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.anwaltsblatt.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Anwaltsblatt/PDF/oerak_25_leitfaden-KI-folder_a4_250923.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no guidance from the Austrian judiciary or the Federal Ministry of Justice on judges using generative AI was located before the search budget was exhausted. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies as Council of Europe soft law.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No Austrian rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning found as of 4 September 2026; the EU AI Act (Annex III point 8(a), recital 61) and art. 22 GDPR apply.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No Austrian court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Austrian evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "§ 9(2) RAO confidentiality applies without restriction to AI use: entering mandate-related or otherwise confidential information into public or unsecured AI systems 'stellt einen Bruch der Verschwiegenheit dar und ist standesrechtlich unzulässig'. Lawyers may instruct only AI providers that meet the duties in § 40(3) RL-BA; otherwise only abstract, anonymous questions may be asked.", "documents": [ "at-oerak-ki-leitfaden-anwaltskanzleien" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ÖRAK KI-Leitfaden §2 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.anwaltsblatt.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Anwaltsblatt/PDF/oerak_25_leitfaden-KI-folder_a4_250923.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ÖRAK Leitfaden §4: 'Die Nutzung von KI-Systemen ist nur zulässig, wenn eine KI-Kompetenz der Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter besteht' — firms must run regular staff training on data-leak risk, handling confidential information and critical questioning of AI content.", "documents": [ "at-oerak-ki-leitfaden-anwaltskanzleien" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ÖRAK KI-Leitfaden §4 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.anwaltsblatt.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Anwaltsblatt/PDF/oerak_25_leitfaden-KI-folder_a4_250923.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ÖRAK Leitfaden §4 requires a binding internal directive setting which AI applications may be used and for what, what data may never be entered (never mandate-related or personal), which use cases are strictly forbidden, and a named person responsible for selecting, reviewing and approving new AI tools — plus a defined process for human review of every AI output.", "documents": [ "at-oerak-ki-leitfaden-anwaltskanzleien" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ÖRAK KI-Leitfaden §4 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.anwaltsblatt.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Anwaltsblatt/PDF/oerak_25_leitfaden-KI-folder_a4_250923.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "The ÖRAK Leitfaden does not require informing clients or obtaining consent for AI use; no other Austrian rule found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Austrian rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No Austrian ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ÖRAK 'KÜNSTLICHE INTELLIGENZ (KI) IN ANWALTSKANZLEIEN', Stand September 2025, issued by the ÖRAK's Ausschuss IT und Digitalisierung — four pages in five sections (AI basics, professional and data-protection framework, practical implementation, AI competence, provider checklist), distributed through the Anwaltsblatt. The ÖRAK also ran its first KI-Tag in March 2026.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "at-oerak-ki-leitfaden-anwaltskanzleien" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ÖRAK KI-Leitfaden (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.anwaltsblatt.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Anwaltsblatt/PDF/oerak_25_leitfaden-KI-folder_a4_250923.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no published Austrian policy on institutional court AI deployment identified before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "GDPR applies; the ÖRAK Leitfaden requires an Art. 28 GDPR processor agreement alongside the § 40(3) RL-BA undertaking. No Austrian Datenschutzbehörde guidance specific to AI in legal services was located.", "documents": [ "at-oerak-ki-leitfaden-anwaltskanzleien" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ÖRAK KI-Leitfaden §3 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.anwaltsblatt.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Anwaltsblatt/PDF/oerak_25_leitfaden-KI-folder_a4_250923.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly. Austria set up a KI-Servicestelle inside the media and telecoms regulator RTR from 1 Feb 2024 (§ 20c KOG and § 194a TKG, both inserted by BGBl. I Nr. 6/2024) as the national contact and information point supporting AI Act implementation. Full designation of Austrian market-surveillance authorities was not verified in this pass.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "RTR — KI-Servicestelle (official)", "url": "https://www.rtr.at/rtr/service/ki-servicestelle/ki-servicestelle.de.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported Austrian court or disciplinary decision on hallucinated AI citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) is one of the few institutions with a published AI note; its provisions on confidentiality of case data in AI tools, non-delegation of the arbitrator's decision and verification are covered in the international map.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "Article 4 of the EU AI Act binds Austrian firms as deployers from 2 Feb 2025, and the ÖRAK Leitfaden converts this into a hard precondition: AI may only be used if staff have KI-Kompetenz, maintained through regular training. No mandatory AI CLE hours.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-ai-literacy-qa", "at-oerak-ki-leitfaden-anwaltskanzleien" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ÖRAK KI-Leitfaden §4 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.anwaltsblatt.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Anwaltsblatt/PDF/oerak_25_leitfaden-KI-folder_a4_250923.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "The strictest in this group. Under § 40(3) RL-BA the AI provider must sign an undertaking before use; the ÖRAK publishes a checklist the provider must confirm: § 9(2) RAO confidentiality, a § 40(3) RL-BA agreement, an Art. 28 GDPR processor agreement, an absolute ban on using firm input to train models, secure deletion on termination, EU or adequacy-decision hosting (e.g. Switzerland, UK), equivalent compliance by sub-processors, and immediate notification if the provider or a sub-processor is searched by police. The notification duty falls away only for sub-processors that store data briefly and process it fully automatically without human access (§ 40(3)(4) RL-BA).", "documents": [ "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers", "at-oerak-ki-leitfaden-anwaltskanzleien" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ÖRAK KI-Leitfaden §§2–3 and Checkliste für KI-Anbieter (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.anwaltsblatt.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Anwaltsblatt/PDF/oerak_25_leitfaden-KI-folder_a4_250923.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "ÖRAK — Künstliche Intelligenz (KI) in Anwaltskanzleien, Stand September 2025 (PDF, incl. Checkliste für KI-Anbieter)", "url": "https://www.anwaltsblatt.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Anwaltsblatt/PDF/oerak_25_leitfaden-KI-folder_a4_250923.pdf" }, { "label": "RTR — KI-Servicestelle (§ 20c KOG, § 194a TKG)", "url": "https://www.rtr.at/rtr/service/ki-servicestelle/ki-servicestelle.de.html" }, { "label": "Österreichischer Rechtsanwaltskammertag", "url": "https://www.oerak.at/" } ] }, { "id": "az", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/az", "name": "Azerbaijan", "iso": "AZ", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Azerbaijan has an AI Strategy for 2025-2028, national AI standards work and criminal/media amendments on unconsented AI deepfakes and labelling. No dedicated AI law in force, bar guidance, court-filing rule or judicial AI guidance for legal practice was located.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Azerbaijan Bar Association", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Azerbaijan", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.az/en", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Digital Development and Transport", "url": "https://mincom.gov.az/en", "role": "ai-policy" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://justice.gov.az/en", "role": "ministry" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "Azerbaijan criminalized some unconsented AI deepfakes and requires public labels for AI-generated photo, video and audio materials, but no court evidence admissibility rule was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Caspian Legal Center — Azerbaijan criminalizes illegal AI use", "url": "https://www.caspianlegalcenter.az/news/more/ai-use-crime" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The AI Strategy and ministry statements address privacy and standards, but no AI-specific data-protection authority guidance for legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Watch — Azerbaijan Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025-2028", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/the-artificial-intelligence-strategy-of-the-republic-of-azerbaijan-for-2025-2028" }, { "label": "APA — Azerbaijan AI standards and regulatory mechanisms", "url": "https://en.apa.az/ict/deputy-minister-mechanisms-ensuring-transparency-privacy-and-ethical-standards-in-ai-applications-are-being-developed-492444" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Presidentially approved AI Strategy 2025-2028 is a non-binding roadmap. It calls for AI governance, ethical standards, national standards and a legal framework; a separate AI bill is reported as being prepared.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Watch — Azerbaijan Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025-2028", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/the-artificial-intelligence-strategy-of-the-republic-of-azerbaijan-for-2025-2028" }, { "label": "APA — Azerbaijan AI standards and regulatory mechanisms", "url": "https://en.apa.az/ict/deputy-minister-mechanisms-ensuring-transparency-privacy-and-ethical-standards-in-ai-applications-are-being-developed-492444" }, { "label": "1news.az — Azerbaijan prepares law on artificial intelligence", "url": "https://1news.az/en/news/20260410135005860-Azerbaijan-prepares-law-on-artificial-intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Watch — Azerbaijan Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025-2028", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/the-artificial-intelligence-strategy-of-the-republic-of-azerbaijan-for-2025-2028" }, { "label": "APA — Azerbaijan AI standards and regulatory mechanisms", "url": "https://en.apa.az/ict/deputy-minister-mechanisms-ensuring-transparency-privacy-and-ethical-standards-in-ai-applications-are-being-developed-492444" }, { "label": "1news.az — Azerbaijan prepares law on artificial intelligence", "url": "https://1news.az/en/news/20260410135005860-Azerbaijan-prepares-law-on-artificial-intelligence" }, { "label": "Caspian Legal Center — Azerbaijan criminalizes illegal AI use", "url": "https://www.caspianlegalcenter.az/news/more/ai-use-crime" }, { "label": "Ministry of Digital Development and Transport", "url": "https://mincom.gov.az/en" } ] }, { "id": "bh", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/bh", "name": "Bahrain", "iso": "BH", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Bahrain has no court rule, judicial guidance or bar rule on AI in legal practice. The Information and eGovernment Authority's General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (v1.0, 20 May 2025) applies across government, requiring human decision-making and iGA-coordinated adoption. A 38-article Shura Council AI bill remains stalled after government objections.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Information and eGovernment Authority (iGA)", "url": "https://www.iga.gov.bh/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Bahrain Bar Society [Jamiyyat al-Muhamin al-Bahrainiyya]", "url": "https://bahrainbar.org/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR)", "url": "https://bcdr.org/", "role": "arbitration" } ], "jurisdiction": "gulf", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Bahraini court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Bahraini judges and prosecutors attended UNESCO's Arab-region AI and Rule of Law training in Doha (8-11 December 2024), but the Supreme Judicial Council has issued no guidance on judges' use of AI.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "UNESCO — Judicial professionals from the Arab region trained on AI and the rule of law", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/judicial-professionals-arab-region-trained-artificial-intelligence-and-rule-law" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The iGA policy's first principle requires that the final decision in important matters remain under human control, and its second pillar requires human oversight so that responsibility rests with people, not machines — but it is not addressed to adjudication.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "iGA General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence v1.0 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.iga.gov.bh/Media/Publications/National%20Digital%20Policies/General%20Policy%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Bahraini evidence rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake material was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Bahrain Bar Society has published no restriction on client data in AI tools.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Amendments to Bahrain's Law of Advocacy were reported in 2026 but no AI or technology competence duty was identified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No generative-AI guidance from the Bahrain Bar Society was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No court-specific policy found. The iGA General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (v1.0, 20 May 2025) applies to all government entities in Bahrain and governs how they adopt AI; it contains no judiciary-, court- or justice-specific provision on the verified full text.", "documents": [ "bh-iga-general-policy-ai-use" ], "sources": [ { "label": "iGA General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence v1.0 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.iga.gov.bh/Media/Publications/National%20Digital%20Policies/General%20Policy%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "Personal Data Protection Law No. 30 of 2018 governs automated processing and is named in the iGA AI policy as a compliance obligation for government AI use. No AI-specific guidance from the Personal Data Protection Authority, and nothing addressed to legal services, was located.", "documents": [ "bh-iga-general-policy-ai-use" ], "sources": [ { "label": "iGA General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence v1.0 (official PDF, section 6.1.2)", "url": "https://www.iga.gov.bh/Media/Publications/National%20Digital%20Policies/General%20Policy%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "A 38-article standalone AI bill approved by the Shura Council in April 2024 would create a National Centre for Artificial Intelligence under the Ministry of Interior with licensing, civil and criminal liability and penalties up to ten years. The government objected in November 2024, preferring a regulatory sandbox; not enacted.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Daily Tribune — AI regulation bill faces pushback (23 November 2024)", "url": "https://www.newsofbahrain.com/bahrain/105401.html" }, { "label": "Daily Tribune — 10-year jail term for misusing AI", "url": "https://www.newsofbahrain.com/bahrain/109428.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Bahraini decision sanctioning a lawyer for AI-fabricated citations was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. BCDR's arbitration rules (2022) and mediation rules (2019) contain no AI provisions; a site search found only a 2024 research paper and conference participation, not institutional guidance.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "BCDR website (searched)", "url": "https://bcdr.org/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory requirement for legal professionals as of 4 September 2026. The iGA policy's third pillar requires government entities to run AI awareness and training for their own employees; Bahraini judges and prosecutors attended voluntary UNESCO training in December 2024.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "iGA General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence v1.0 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.iga.gov.bh/Media/Publications/National%20Digital%20Policies/General%20Policy%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Not legal-sector specific. The iGA policy's second pillar requires government entities to consider AI in projects and procurements, to adopt AI only in coordination with the iGA, to follow iGA standards for launching AI initiatives, and to run regular audits of AI use.", "documents": [ "bh-iga-general-policy-ai-use" ], "sources": [ { "label": "iGA General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence v1.0 (official PDF, section 6.2.2)", "url": "https://www.iga.gov.bh/Media/Publications/National%20Digital%20Policies/General%20Policy%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "iGA — General Policy for the Use of Artificial Intelligence, Version 1.0 (20 May 2025)", "url": "https://www.iga.gov.bh/Media/Publications/National%20Digital%20Policies/General%20Policy%20for%20the%20Use%20of%20AI.pdf" }, { "label": "Daily Tribune — AI regulation bill faces pushback as Bahrain eyes practical alternatives (23 November 2024)", "url": "https://www.newsofbahrain.com/bahrain/105401.html" }, { "label": "Daily Tribune — 10-year jail term for misusing AI (draft AI law before Parliament)", "url": "https://www.newsofbahrain.com/bahrain/109428.html" }, { "label": "UNESCO — Judicial professionals from the Arab region trained on AI and the rule of law (December 2024)", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/judicial-professionals-arab-region-trained-artificial-intelligence-and-rule-law" }, { "label": "Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR)", "url": "https://bcdr.org/" } ] }, { "id": "bd", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/bd", "name": "Bangladesh", "iso": "BD", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 no rule, guidance or reported case on AI in legal practice was found for Bangladesh. The Supreme Court and Bar Council have issued nothing and commentary in the legal press calls for a courtroom AI policy. A National AI Policy adopted in early 2026 reportedly directs the Ministry of Law to draft an AI Act.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Bangladesh", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov.bd/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Bangladesh Bar Council", "url": "https://www.barcouncil.gov.bd/", "role": "bar" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Supreme Court policy on judges' AI use found as of 4 September 2026; The Daily Star and The Business Standard have argued that Bangladesh needs a courtroom AI policy soon.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "The Daily Star opinion", "url": "https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/bangladesh-needs-courtroom-ai-policy-and-soon-4259816" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Bangladesh Bar Council guidance on generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "A Personal Data Protection Ordinance was reported in 2025 but could not be verified within the research budget; no AI-specific regulator guidance was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The National AI Policy 2026 reportedly directs the Ministry of Law to draft a comprehensive AI Act by 2028; the policy text could not be opened from an official source. No AI statute is in force.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Commentary on the Bangladesh AI Policy 2026", "url": "https://medium.com/@fahasan.du/bangladeshs-ai-policy-2026-is-a-bold-start-but-without-these-fixes-it-may-remain-toothless-571a12dd0ea5" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported case of AI-fabricated citations before Bangladeshi courts found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "The Daily Star: Bangladesh needs a courtroom AI policy", "url": "https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/bangladesh-needs-courtroom-ai-policy-and-soon-4259816" }, { "label": "The Business Standard: AI, accountability and Bangladesh's judiciary", "url": "https://www.tbsnews.net/thoughts/balancing-justice-and-algorithm-ai-accountability-and-future-bangladeshs-judiciary-1150101" } ] }, { "id": "by", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/by", "name": "Belarus", "iso": "BY", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Belarus has no enacted AI law, court rule, bar guidance or legal-practice AI case located. State media reports that AI legislation, an AI concept and strategy are planned for the 2026 legislative agenda; current legal-practice issues remain governed by general professional, data and court rules.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Belarusian Republican Bar Association", "url": "https://brka.by/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Belarus", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Personal Data Protection Centre", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "National Academy of Sciences / United Institute of Informatics Problems", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Belarus has a personal-data law and National Personal Data Protection Centre, but no AI-specific data-protection guidance for legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection Laws of the World — Belarus", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=BY" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Belarus.by reported that government bodies mandated development of AI legislation for the 2026 legislative agenda, with an AI concept, strategy and technical committee to be prepared. No enacted AI law was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Belarus.by — Belarus plans to start drawing up AI bill in 2026", "url": "https://www.belarus.by/en/government/events/belarus-plans-to-start-drawing-up-ai-bill-in-2026_i_0000196192.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Belarus.by — Belarus plans to start drawing up AI bill in 2026", "url": "https://www.belarus.by/en/government/events/belarus-plans-to-start-drawing-up-ai-bill-in-2026_i_0000196192.html" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection Laws of the World — Belarus", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=BY" }, { "label": "Belarusian Republican Bar Association", "url": "https://brka.by/" } ] }, { "id": "be", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/be", "name": "Belgium", "iso": "BE", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Belgium's only legal-AI instrument is the joint OVB and Avocats.be guidelines for lawyers on the use of artificial intelligence, dated 1 February 2025. They are deliberately permissive: cited sources must be verified, professional secrecy must never enter a tool, and there is expressly no duty to tell the client.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Flemish Bar Association (Orde van Vlaamse Balies, OVB)", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/", "role": "bar (Dutch-speaking)" }, { "name": "Bar Association of French- and German-speaking Belgium (Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Avocats.be/OBFG)", "url": "https://avocats.be/", "role": "bar (French/German-speaking)" }, { "name": "Data Protection Authority (Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit / Autorité de protection des données)", "url": "https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "College of Courts and Tribunals (College van de hoven en rechtbanken / Collège des cours et tribunaux)", "url": "https://www.rechtbanken-tribunaux.be/", "role": "judiciary" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Belgian court rule or practice direction requires parties or counsel to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OVB/Avocats.be guidelines: 'De advocaat controleert het resultaat, met inbegrip van vermelde bronnen' — the lawyer must verify that the legislation, doctrine and case law cited in the output actually exist, and must remain critical of the reasoning even where each step cannot be traced to a source.", "documents": [ "be-ovb-obfg-richtlijnen-ai-advocaten" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OVB/OBFG — Richtlijnen voor advocaten Gebruik Artificiële Intelligentie (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/ovb_filesystem/ovb/OVB_OBFG_Richtlijnen-AI-Advocaten.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not fully checked — no guidance from the College van de hoven en rechtbanken, the Hoge Raad voor de Justitie or the Institute for Judicial Training was located before the search budget was exhausted. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies as Council of Europe soft law.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No Belgian rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning found as of 4 September 2026; the EU AI Act (Annex III point 8(a), recital 61) and art. 22 GDPR are the operative constraints.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OVB/Avocats.be: the lawyer 'voert nooit stukken of informatie die gedekt zijn door het beroepsgeheim' into an AI tool, the only exception being absolute certainty that the tool runs in a closed environment with sufficient safeguards (e.g. inside the firm perimeter with no outward data sharing). Personal data must be pseudonymised and kept out of prompts.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "be-ovb-obfg-richtlijnen-ai-advocaten" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OVB/OBFG Richtlijnen §1.2 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/ovb_filesystem/ovb/OVB_OBFG_Richtlijnen-AI-Advocaten.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OVB/Avocats.be §1.1: 'De advocaat kent de basis van artificiële intelligentie en Large Language Models', and must respect art. 455 Ger.W. and art. 1 of the Codex Deontologie voor Advocaten (art. 1.2 in the French Codex) — behoorlijke beroepsuitoefening, expertise, professional secrecy, independence, avoidance of conflicts, dignity, integrity and discretion.", "documents": [ "be-ovb-obfg-richtlijnen-ai-advocaten" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OVB/OBFG Richtlijnen §1.1 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/ovb_filesystem/ovb/OVB_OBFG_Richtlijnen-AI-Advocaten.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No dedicated supervision rule. The guidelines state the lawyer 'blijft steeds eindverantwoordelijke voor de output van de AI die hij gebruikt' and that all liability principles continue to apply.", "documents": [ "be-ovb-obfg-richtlijnen-ai-advocaten" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OVB/OBFG Richtlijnen §1.3 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/ovb_filesystem/ovb/OVB_OBFG_Richtlijnen-AI-Advocaten.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Belgium takes the opposite line to the Netherlands: 'De advocaat is niet verplicht over zijn gebruik van AI te communiceren' — no more than for any other IT application. Consent is required only where processing personal data of a data subject is essential and consent is the applicable legal basis. Chatbot users must be told they are dealing with an automated AI system.", "documents": [ "be-ovb-obfg-richtlijnen-ai-advocaten" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OVB/OBFG Richtlijnen §§1.1, 1.2, 1.3 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/ovb_filesystem/ovb/OVB_OBFG_Richtlijnen-AI-Advocaten.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "The OVB/OBFG guidelines do not address fees; no other Belgian rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No Belgian ruling or regulation on AI legal products offered to the public found as of 4 September 2026. The guidelines permit lawyers to develop their own chatbots provided users are told the system is automated.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "'Richtlijnen voor advocaten voor het gebruik van Artificiële Intelligentie' / 'Lignes directrices à l'intention des avocat(e)s sur l'utilisation de l'intelligence artificielle', dated 1 February 2025 (announced 31 Jan 2025), issued jointly by the OVB and Avocats.be through their digitalisation and deontology commissions. Six pages, bilingual, adding no new deontological duties but applying existing ones.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "be-ovb-obfg-richtlijnen-ai-advocaten" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OVB — Gebruik Artificiële Intelligentie (official)", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/nl/kennisbank/digitalisering/richtlijnen-voor-advocaten-rond-gebruik-van-artificiele-intelligentie" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no published Belgian policy on institutional court AI deployment identified before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Belgian DPA publishes information brochures on AI systems and the GDPR and on the impact of AI on privacy, and points to EDPB Opinion 28/2024 on AI models and EDPB Guidelines 03/2026 on web scraping for generative AI. Nothing specific to legal services.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit — Artificiële intelligentie (official)", "url": "https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/burger/thema-s/artificiele-intelligentie" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly, including Annex III point 8(a) for judicial-support AI. Belgium's designation of national competent authorities and market-surveillance authorities was not verified against an official instrument in this pass.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-draft-guidelines-high-risk-classification" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported Belgian court or disciplinary decision on hallucinated AI citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no CEPANI (Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation) AI rule identified before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "Article 4 of the EU AI Act binds law firms as deployers from 2 Feb 2025. No Belgian mandatory AI CLE; the OVB runs voluntary AI seminars for the profession.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-ai-literacy-qa" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OVB/Avocats.be §1.1: before use, the lawyer must read the tool's terms, with attention to conditions on training, transfer and storage of data, further processing by the platform, localisation of processing, the open or closed character of the system, the platform's liability terms, and IP and licence conditions.", "documents": [ "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers", "be-ovb-obfg-richtlijnen-ai-advocaten" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OVB/OBFG Richtlijnen §1.1 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/ovb_filesystem/ovb/OVB_OBFG_Richtlijnen-AI-Advocaten.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "OVB/Avocats.be — Richtlijnen voor advocaten voor het gebruik van Artificiële Intelligentie, 1 Feb 2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/ovb_filesystem/ovb/OVB_OBFG_Richtlijnen-AI-Advocaten.pdf" }, { "label": "OVB knowledge bank — Gebruik Artificiële Intelligentie", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/nl/kennisbank/digitalisering/richtlijnen-voor-advocaten-rond-gebruik-van-artificiele-intelligentie" }, { "label": "OVB news — Advocaten en het gebruik van Artificiële Intelligentie, 31 Jan 2025", "url": "https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/nl/nieuws-en-events/advocaten-en-het-gebruik-van-artificiele-intelligentie" }, { "label": "Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit — Artificiële intelligentie", "url": "https://www.gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit.be/burger/thema-s/artificiele-intelligentie" } ] }, { "id": "bo", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/bo", "name": "Bolivia", "iso": "BO", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Bolivia has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of judicial, bar, digital-government and data-protection materials found no AI filing disclosure rule, judicial guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, legal-AI sanction or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Tribunal of Justice", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Judicial Branch of Bolivia", "url": "https://www.organojudicial.gob.bo/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Agency for Electronic Government and ICT (AGETIC)", "url": "https://agetic.gob.bo/", "role": "digital-government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "General habeas-data and privacy remedies exist; no AI-specific data-protection authority guidance relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Bolivia", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=BO" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "AGETIC", "url": "https://agetic.gob.bo/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Bolivia", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=BO" } ] }, { "id": "ba", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ba", "name": "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "iso": "BA", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Bosnia and Herzegovina has no dedicated AI law, official AI guidance, court rule, bar guidance or legal-practice AI case located. CMS reports AI is only briefly mentioned in Federation and Republika Srpska development strategies; data protection applies generally but not through AI-specific guidance.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Bar Association of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina", "url": "https://advokomfbih.ba/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Bar Association of Republika Srpska", "url": "https://advokatskakomora.ba/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council", "url": "https://vstv.pravosudje.ba/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The new data-protection framework applies generally, but no Agency AI guidance for legal services or courts was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection Laws of the World — Bosnia and Herzegovina", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/?t=law&c=BA" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "CMS reported no dedicated AI law, no official AI guidance and no forthcoming AI-specific legislation. AI appears only briefly in entity development strategies; Bosnia and Herzegovina seeks broader EU alignment.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in Bosnia and Herzegovina", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/bosnia-and-herzegovina" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in Bosnia and Herzegovina", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/bosnia-and-herzegovina" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection Laws of the World — Bosnia and Herzegovina", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/?t=law&c=BA" }, { "label": "High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council of Bosnia and Herzegovina", "url": "https://vstv.pravosudje.ba/" }, { "label": "Bar Association of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina", "url": "https://advokomfbih.ba/" }, { "label": "Bar Association of Republika Srpska", "url": "https://advokatskakomora.ba/" } ] }, { "id": "bw", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/bw", "name": "Botswana", "iso": "BW", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Botswana has no court, judiciary or Law Society AI guidance located. The national AI policy was still in drafting in 2025/2026; the Data Protection Act 2024 governs automated personal-data processing generally. No filing-disclosure rule, AI citation-sanction case or legal-sector AI training mandate was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Law Society of Botswana", "url": "https://lawsociety.org.bw/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Administration of Justice", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.bw/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Botswana Communications Regulatory Authority", "url": "https://www.bocra.org.bw/", "role": "ICT regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Botswana’s data-protection regime covers processing by automatic means, but no Information and Data Protection Commission guidance applying it specifically to AI or legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection Laws — Botswana collection and processing", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=authority&c=BW" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "AAGI reports Botswana’s AI Policy is in final development under the Ministry of Communications and Innovation, following UNESCO readiness work. No final policy, AI Act or justice-sector risk classification was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "African AI Governance Index — Botswana profile", "url": "https://africanaigovernanceindex.com/country/bw" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "African AI Governance Index — Botswana profile", "url": "https://africanaigovernanceindex.com/country/bw" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection Laws — Botswana collection and processing", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=authority&c=BW" }, { "label": "Law Society of Botswana", "url": "https://lawsociety.org.bw/" }, { "label": "Administration of Justice Botswana", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.bw/" }, { "label": "BOCRA", "url": "https://www.bocra.org.bw/" } ] }, { "id": "br", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/br", "name": "Brazil", "iso": "BR", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Brazil has the region's densest framework: CNJ Resolution 615/2025 binding on all courts, the Federal Bar's Recommendation 001/2024 and its June 2026 National AI Plan, a Sao Paulo ethics ruling on partner supervision, a steady line of bad-faith fines and bar referrals for hallucinated citations, and an AI Act-style bill still pending.", "regulators": [ { "name": "National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justica)", "url": "https://www.cnj.jus.br/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar (Conselho Federal da OAB)", "url": "https://www.oab.org.br/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "National Data Protection Authority (ANPD)", "url": "https://www.gov.br/anpd/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justica)", "url": "https://www.stj.jus.br/", "role": "court" } ], "jurisdiction": "brazil", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule requires parties or lawyers to disclose or certify AI use in filings. CNJ Resolution 615/2025 binds courts, not litigants, and OAB Recommendation 001/2024 requires notice to the client rather than to the court.", "documents": [ "brazil-cnj-resolucao-615-2025", "br-oab-recomendacao-001-2024" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OAB Recommendation 001/2024 of 11 November 2024 makes the lawyer responsible for verifying AI output, and the Sao Paulo Bar's ethics tribunal ruled on 16 April 2026 that all AI output must be fully reviewed before filing, citing article 77 of the civil procedure code. Courts enforce this through bad-faith fines.", "documents": [ "br-oab-recomendacao-001-2024", "br-oab-sp-ted-supervisao-ia-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OAB Recomendacao 001/2024 (official PDF)", "url": "https://s.oab.org.br/arquivos/2024/11/7160d4fe-9449-4aed-80bc-a2d7ac1f5d2f.pdf" }, { "label": "OAB/SP ethics ruling (Migalhas)", "url": "https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/455537/advogados-socios-devem-garantir-supervisao-em-uso-de-ia-decide-oab-sp" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "CNJ Resolution 615/2025, approved 11 March 2025 and in force 14 July 2025, governs judges' and staff use of AI including generative models, with mandatory human supervision, risk classification and a National AI Committee. It replaces Resolution 332/2020 of 21 August 2020.", "documents": [ "brazil-cnj-resolucao-615-2025", "br-cnj-resolucao-332-2020" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNJ Resolucao 615/2025", "url": "https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/6001" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "binding", "note": "CNJ Resolution 615/2025 requires human supervision of every AI-assisted judicial act and restricts high-risk uses, so AI may support but not replace the judge's decision. Resolution 332/2020 had already barred AI from criminal sentencing recommendations.", "documents": [ "brazil-cnj-resolucao-615-2025", "br-cnj-resolucao-332-2020" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNJ Resolucao 615/2025", "url": "https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/6001" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "br-stj-sls-3596-resolve-juizado-2025" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake evidence in civil or criminal proceedings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OAB Recommendation 001/2024 devotes a pillar to confidentiality and privacy: professional secrecy must not be compromised, client data must not be entered into AI systems without confidentiality and security guarantees, and the data-protection law applies.", "documents": [ "br-oab-recomendacao-001-2024" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OAB Recomendacao 001/2024 (official PDF)", "url": "https://s.oab.org.br/arquivos/2024/11/7160d4fe-9449-4aed-80bc-a2d7ac1f5d2f.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OAB Recommendation 001/2024 expects lawyers to understand the tools they use and to stay current on AI implications, and the OAB National AI Plan of 15 June 2026 commits the bar's law schools to expanded AI training. The Code of Ethics has not been amended.", "documents": [ "br-oab-recomendacao-001-2024", "br-oab-plano-nacional-ia-advocacia-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OAB National AI Plan (Migalhas)", "url": "https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/458194/oab-lanca-plano-nacional-para-orientar-uso-de-ia-na-advocacia" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Sao Paulo Bar Ethics and Discipline Tribunal ruled on 16 April 2026 that partners and managers must ensure AI use by associates, contractors, trainees and non-lawyer staff is supervised and must review all AI output before it is filed.", "documents": [ "br-oab-sp-ted-supervisao-ia-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OAB/SP ethics ruling (Migalhas)", "url": "https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/455537/advogados-socios-devem-garantir-supervisao-em-uso-de-ia-decide-oab-sp" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OAB Recommendation 001/2024: a lawyer who uses AI in providing services must formalise that intention to the client in writing before starting to use it, explaining the risks and the confidentiality measures adopted.", "documents": [ "br-oab-recomendacao-001-2024" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OAB Recomendacao 001/2024 (official PDF)", "url": "https://s.oab.org.br/arquivos/2024/11/7160d4fe-9449-4aed-80bc-a2d7ac1f5d2f.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar opinion or court decision on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The Superior Court of Justice refused in June 2025 to take down an AI petition-drafting site for small-claims courts, finding no prima facie unauthorised practice where the law dispenses with counsel; the 27th Federal Court of Rio de Janeiro rejected the bar's claim on the merits in November 2025.", "documents": [ "br-stj-sls-3596-resolve-juizado-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "STJ decision (Migalhas)", "url": "https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/431663/stj-ministro-mantem-no-ar-site-que-vende-peticoes-geradas-por-ia" }, { "label": "Federal court judgment (ConJur)", "url": "https://www.conjur.com.br/2025-nov-24/juiz-federal-confirma-validade-de-site-que-vende-peticoes-feitas-por-ia/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Federal OAB Recommendation 001/2024, approved 11 November 2024, sets four pillars: applicable law, confidentiality, ethical practice and communication about AI use. It was elevated to institutional policy by the National Plan for Integrating AI into Legal Practice of 15 June 2026, which promises a Code of Good Practice.", "documents": [ "br-oab-recomendacao-001-2024", "br-oab-plano-nacional-ia-advocacia-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OAB news: recommendations approved", "url": "https://www.oab.org.br/noticia/62704/oab-aprova-recomendacoes-para-uso-de-ia-na-pratica-juridica" }, { "label": "OAB news: National AI Plan", "url": "https://www.oab.org.br/noticia/64268/conselho-federal-da-oab-anuncia-plano-nacional-para-integrar-inteligencia-artificial-a-advocacia" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "CNJ Resolution 615/2025 governs development, contracting and deployment of AI by all courts through the Sinapses platform, with risk classification, transparency registers and a National AI Committee.", "documents": [ "brazil-cnj-resolucao-615-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNJ Resolucao 615/2025", "url": "https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/6001" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Article 20 of the data-protection law, on the right to review of automated decisions, applies. The ANPD ran a public call for input on AI and automated-decision review from November 2024 to January 2025 as item 7 of its regulatory agenda; the resulting regulation has not been issued.", "documents": [ "br-anpd-tomada-subsidios-ia-decisoes-automatizadas" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ANPD call for input", "url": "https://www.gov.br/participamaisbrasil/tomada-de-subsidios-inteligencia-artificial-e-revisao-de-decisoes-automatizadas" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Bill 2338/2023, the legal framework for AI, is risk-based and modelled on the EU AI Act. It was approved by the Senate on 10 December 2024 and sent to the Chamber of Deputies on 17 March 2025, where a special committee holds it; a plenary vote scheduled for May 2026 had not produced final approval.", "documents": [ "br-pl-2338-2023-marco-legal-ia" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Senado Federal: PL 2338/2023", "url": "https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/157233" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "A consistent line since 2025 under articles 80 and 81 of the civil procedure code: a Santa Catarina warning in February 2025; a Londrina federal court fine of 20 minimum wages plus bar referral in July 2025; a labour court bad-faith fine in March 2026; and a Parana 2 per cent fine with bar referral in June 2026.", "documents": [ "br-tjpr-9-camara-ai-citation-fine-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TJPR ruling (Migalhas)", "url": "https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/459252/tj-pr-ve-ma-fe-e-multa-advogado-por-julgado-confeccionado-por-ia" }, { "label": "TST press release", "url": "https://www.tst.jus.br/-/empresa-e-advogado-sao-condenados-por-possivel-uso-de-ia-com-citacoes-falsas-de-jurisprudencia" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CAM-CCBC Administrative Guidance 07/2025 of 17 July 2025: participants must understand AI tools and their limits, keep confidentiality, party representatives are responsible for the factual and legal accuracy of AI-assisted work, disclosure is decided case by case, and arbitrators must not delegate decision-making to AI.", "documents": [ "br-cam-ccbc-orientacao-administrativa-07-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CAM-CCBC Orientacao Administrativa 07/2025", "url": "https://www.ccbc.org.br/cam-ccbc-centro-arbitragem-mediacao/orientacao-administrativa-no-07-2025/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training for lawyers or judges. The OAB National AI Plan of June 2026 expands voluntary courses only. No rule was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "br-oab-plano-nacional-ia-advocacia-2026" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "For courts only: CNJ Resolution 615/2025 sets requirements for developing and contracting AI solutions, covering governance, transparency, data security and a preference for the judiciary's own platform. There is no vendor due-diligence guidance for law firms.", "documents": [ "brazil-cnj-resolucao-615-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNJ Resolucao 615/2025", "url": "https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/6001" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "CNJ Resolucao 615/2025", "url": "https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/6001" }, { "label": "OAB Recomendacao 001/2024 (PDF)", "url": "https://s.oab.org.br/arquivos/2024/11/7160d4fe-9449-4aed-80bc-a2d7ac1f5d2f.pdf" }, { "label": "OAB National AI Plan (OAB news)", "url": "https://www.oab.org.br/noticia/64268/conselho-federal-da-oab-anuncia-plano-nacional-para-integrar-inteligencia-artificial-a-advocacia" }, { "label": "OAB/SP ethics tribunal supervision ruling (Migalhas)", "url": "https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/455537/advogados-socios-devem-garantir-supervisao-em-uso-de-ia-decide-oab-sp" }, { "label": "Senado: PL 2338/2023", "url": "https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/157233" }, { "label": "CAM-CCBC Orientacao Administrativa 07/2025", "url": "https://www.ccbc.org.br/cam-ccbc-centro-arbitragem-mediacao/orientacao-administrativa-no-07-2025/" }, { "label": "TJPR fine and bar referral (Migalhas)", "url": "https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/459252/tj-pr-ve-ma-fe-e-multa-advogado-por-julgado-confeccionado-por-ia" } ] }, { "id": "bn", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/bn", "name": "Brunei", "iso": "BN", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "religious-mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Brunei has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the judiciary, Law Society, Attorney General, AITI and data-protection materials found no AI filing disclosure rule, judicial-use guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, sanction case or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Brunei Darussalam", "url": "https://www.judiciary.gov.bn/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Law Society of Brunei Darussalam", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Authority for Info-communications Technology Industry", "url": "https://www.aiti.gov.bn/", "role": "digital regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Brunei's personal-data framework is developing; no AI-specific data-protection guidance for legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Brunei", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=BN" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Brunei Judiciary", "url": "https://www.judiciary.gov.bn/" }, { "label": "Authority for Info-communications Technology Industry", "url": "https://www.aiti.gov.bn/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Brunei", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=BN" } ] }, { "id": "bg", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/bg", "name": "Bulgaria", "iso": "BG", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Bulgaria has no Supreme Bar Council, Supreme Judicial Council or CPDP guidance located on AI in legal practice. The EU AI Act applies directly, including Annex III justice classifications; Bulgarian national implementation remains unfinished, with BTA reporting only fundamental-rights bodies designated and high-risk oversight still pending.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Bar Council [Висш адвокатски съвет]", "url": "https://www.vas.bg/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Judicial Council [Висш съдебен съвет]", "url": "https://vss.justice.bg/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Commission for Personal Data Protection (CPDP)", "url": "https://cpdp.bg/en/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "EU AI Act Article 4 requires providers and deployers, including law firms using AI systems, to take measures ensuring sufficient AI literacy since 2 February 2025. No Bulgarian bar competence rule naming AI was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Supreme Bar Council AI guidance text was located. BTA reported in 2026 that the Justice Minister welcomed council efforts to regulate AI use by lawyers, but no public rule or draft was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "BTA — Justice Minister on Supreme Bar Council AI efforts", "url": "https://www.bta.bg/en/news/bulgaria/1141923-fair-and-effective-justice-impossible-without-strong-independent-respected-bar" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Supreme Judicial Council AI policy was found. The council publishes e-justice and case-processing updates, but no court AI deployment rule or guidance was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "CPDP was checked as Bulgaria's data-protection authority. No AI-specific CPDP guidance for legal services or lawyers was located; GDPR and national data-protection rules apply generally.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly in Bulgaria, including Annex III point 8 justice uses. National implementation is incomplete: BTA reported only fundamental-rights bodies designated and high-risk oversight, sanctions and coordination still pending.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "European Commission — market surveillance authorities under the AI Act", "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/market-surveillance-authorities-under-ai-act" }, { "label": "BTA — Bulgaria still lacks high-risk AI oversight and sanctions under AI Act", "url": "https://www.bta.bg/en/news/1040178-bulgaria-still-lacks-oversight-of-high-risk-ai-systems-sanctions-under-ai-act-r" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "EU AI Act Article 4 creates an AI-literacy duty for deployers; it is not a Bulgarian CLE rule. No mandatory bar AI training requirement was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "BTA — Bulgaria still lacks high-risk AI oversight and sanctions under AI Act", "url": "https://www.bta.bg/en/news/1040178-bulgaria-still-lacks-oversight-of-high-risk-ai-systems-sanctions-under-ai-act-r" }, { "label": "BTA — Justice Minister on Supreme Bar Council AI efforts", "url": "https://www.bta.bg/en/news/bulgaria/1141923-fair-and-effective-justice-impossible-without-strong-independent-respected-bar" }, { "label": "European Commission AI Watch — Bulgaria AI strategy report", "url": "https://ai-watch.ec.europa.eu/countries/bulgaria/bulgaria-ai-strategy-report_en" }, { "label": "European Commission — market surveillance authorities under the AI Act", "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/market-surveillance-authorities-under-ai-act" } ] }, { "id": "kh", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/kh", "name": "Cambodia", "iso": "KH", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Cambodia has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the Supreme Court, Bar Association, Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and arbitration bodies found no AI court rule, judicial guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, sanction case or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Cambodia", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.kh/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia", "url": "https://www.bakc.org.kh/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications", "url": "https://mptc.gov.kh/", "role": "digital regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Cambodia has sectoral privacy obligations in e-commerce law; no AI-specific legal-services guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Cambodia", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=KH" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI rules from Cambodia's National Commercial Arbitration Centre or Arbitration Council found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Cambodia", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.kh/" }, { "label": "Bar Association of the Kingdom of Cambodia", "url": "https://www.bakc.org.kh/" }, { "label": "National Commercial Arbitration Centre", "url": "https://ncac.org.kh/en/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Cambodia", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=KH" } ] }, { "id": "cm", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/cm", "name": "Cameroon", "iso": "CM", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Cameroon has no AI rule for lawyers, courts or filings located. Its National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, unveiled in July 2025 by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, is a cross-sector policy with governance and data-infrastructure pillars; no adopted court protocol, bar guidance or AI statute was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Cameroon Bar Association", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "General data-protection or privacy law may apply, but no AI-specific data-protection guidance for legal services was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Cameroon’s SNIA, unveiled in July 2025 by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, is a national strategy with governance, data infrastructure, multilingual AI, edge computing, human-capital, innovation and regional-cooperation pillars. No enacted AI law was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — Cameroon’s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (SNIA)", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/cameroons-national-artificial-intelligence-strategy-snia" }, { "label": "CameroonOnline — Cameroon unveils seven-pillar AI strategy", "url": "https://www.cameroononline.org/cameroon-unveils-seven-pillar-ai-strategy-to-become-africas-leading-hub-by-2040/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — Cameroon’s National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (SNIA)", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/cameroons-national-artificial-intelligence-strategy-snia" }, { "label": "CameroonOnline — Cameroon unveils seven-pillar AI strategy", "url": "https://www.cameroononline.org/cameroon-unveils-seven-pillar-ai-strategy-to-become-africas-leading-hub-by-2040/" } ] }, { "id": "ca", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ca", "name": "Canada", "iso": "CA", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Canada regulates legal AI through courts and provincial law societies, not statute. The Federal Court has required a declaration of AI-generated content since 20 December 2023, the Canadian Judicial Council issued judicial AI guidelines in 2024, and thirteen of fourteen law societies have published generative-AI guidance.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Federal Court of Canada", "url": "https://www.fct-cf.ca/en/pages/law-and-practice/artificial-intelligence", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Canadian Judicial Council [Conseil canadien de la magistrature]", "url": "https://cjc-ccm.ca/en", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Federation of Law Societies of Canada", "url": "https://flsc.ca/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Canadian Bar Association", "url": "https://www.cba.org/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada", "url": "https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/technology/artificial-intelligence/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "canada", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Federal Court requires a declaration in the first paragraph of any document containing AI-generated content (notice of 20 Dec 2023, updated 7 May 2024). Manitoba King's Bench and the Supreme Court of Yukon require materials to state how AI was used. Ontario requires certification of the authenticity of every authority cited in a factum.", "documents": [ "canada-federal-court-ai-notice", "manitoba-kb-ai-court-submissions-practice-direction", "yukon-sc-general-29-use-of-ai", "ontario-rules-civil-procedure-factum-authenticity-certification" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Verification is required by court rule or directive in most jurisdictions: Federal Court human-in-the-loop verification; Alberta's tri-court notice (6 Oct 2023) requires exclusive reliance on authoritative sources; Saskatchewan GA-PD #12 (1 Jan 2026) requires independent verification and meaningful human oversight; Ontario SCJ practice directions require verification against trusted sources.", "documents": [ "canada-federal-court-ai-notice", "ontario-rules-civil-procedure-factum-authenticity-certification" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Alberta Courts — tri-court notice on Large Language Models (PDF)", "url": "https://albertacourts.ca/docs/default-source/qb/npp/tri-court-notice-to-profession-and-public---large-language-models.pdf?sfvrsn=713d5a82_7" }, { "label": "Saskatchewan King's Bench GA-PD #12 (PDF)", "url": "https://sasklawcourts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/KB_GA-PD-12.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Canadian Judicial Council's Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts (September 2024) apply to federally appointed judges: judges may never delegate decision-making, and use must respect judicial independence, ethics, safety, transparency and ongoing education. The Superior Court of Quebec adopted its own governance framework in September 2025.", "documents": [ "canada-federal-court-interim-ai-principles", "ca-cjc-ai-guidelines-canadian-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CJC — Guidelines for the Use of AI in Canadian Courts (PDF, official)", "url": "https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2024/AI%20Guidelines%20-%20FINAL%20-%202024-09%20-%20EN.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No statute bars AI adjudication, but the CJC guidelines state judges hold exclusive responsibility for their decisions and cannot delegate decision-making authority, and the Federal Court has committed (29 Sep 2025 interim principles) not to use AI or automated decision-making to determine case outcomes without prior public consultation.", "documents": [ "canada-federal-court-interim-ai-principles", "ca-cjc-ai-guidelines-canadian-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CJC — Guidelines for the Use of AI in Canadian Courts (PDF, official)", "url": "https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2024/AI%20Guidelines%20-%20FINAL%20-%202024-09%20-%20EN.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "canada-federal-court-ai-notice", "manitoba-kb-ai-court-submissions-practice-direction", "yukon-sc-general-29-use-of-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Provincial Court of BC — Guidance on using AI to prepare for court", "url": "https://provincialcourt.bc.ca/news-notices-policies-and-practice-directions/enews/07-07-2026" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case specifically on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026. Ontario's O. Reg. 384/24 addresses the authenticity of cited authorities, not evidence generally.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Every published law society guidance restricts client data in AI tools. The Law Society of British Columbia (Nov 2023) warns against entering confidential information in public tools; the Law Society of Ontario white paper (Apr 2024) requires safeguards for confidential and privileged information; Alberta's rules of engagement say the same.", "documents": [ "lsbc-professional-responsibility-generative-ai", "lso-licensee-generative-ai-white-paper", "lsa-gen-ai-rules-of-engagement" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Federation of Law Societies Model Code has required technological competence since 2019; provincial guidance applies it to AI, requiring lawyers to understand the limits and risks of the tools they use (LSBC 2023, LSO 2024, LSA 2024/2025).", "documents": [ "lsbc-professional-responsibility-generative-ai", "lso-licensee-generative-ai-white-paper", "lsa-gen-ai-rules-of-engagement" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society of Ontario white paper (Apr 2024) makes licensees responsible for all work product regardless of AI assistance and addresses supervision of staff and delegated work; Alberta's guidance keeps accountability with the lawyer, not the tool.", "documents": [ "lso-licensee-generative-ai-white-paper", "lsa-gen-ai-rules-of-engagement" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Positions differ. The Law Society of Ontario says there is no obligation to disclose AI use to a client solely because AI was used, though disclosure may be appropriate; the Law Society of British Columbia says lawyers should consider whether to inform clients.", "documents": [ "lso-licensee-generative-ai-white-paper", "lsbc-professional-responsibility-generative-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established within the time available. No Canadian law society document specifically addressing billing for AI-assisted work was located; the general fee-reasonableness rules of the Model Code would apply.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No Canadian ruling or rule on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026. The Barreau du Québec operates an innovation sandbox that allows non-conforming legal-services business models, including AI tools built by non-lawyers, to be tested under conditions.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Barreau du Québec — regulating AI, work under way", "url": "https://www.barreau.qc.ca/en/new/views-profession/encadrer-ia-multiples-travaux-barreau/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Thirteen of fourteen law societies have issued generative-AI guidance (all except New Brunswick), grounded in the Federation of Law Societies Model Code. The Canadian Bar Association publishes Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Legal Practitioner as a national practice tool.", "documents": [ "lsbc-professional-responsibility-generative-ai", "lsa-gen-ai-rules-of-engagement", "lso-licensee-generative-ai-white-paper" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CBA — Ethics of Artificial Intelligence for the Legal Practitioner", "url": "https://www.cba.org/resources/practice-tools/ethics-of-artificial-intelligence-for-the-legal-practitioner/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Federal Court published interim principles on its own AI use on 29 September 2025. The Superior Court of Quebec adopted an AI governance framework in September 2025 and ran a chatbot pilot as a judicial support tool. The CJC guidelines govern federally appointed judges' institutional use.", "documents": [ "canada-federal-court-interim-ai-principles", "ca-cjc-ai-guidelines-canadian-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs — repository of AI initiatives in courts and tribunals", "url": "https://www.fja.gc.ca/COVID-19/Repository-of-AI-Initiatives-in-Courts-and-Tribunals-Repertoire-dinitiatives-IA-dans-les-tribunaux-eng.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Office of the Privacy Commissioner and provincial counterparts have published principles for responsible, trustworthy and privacy-protective generative AI; there is no legal-sector-specific AI privacy guidance. Source page not opened during this pass.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "OPC — Artificial intelligence topic page", "url": "https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/technology/artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (part of Bill C-27) died when Parliament was prorogued in January 2025 and has not been reintroduced. The national strategy AI for All, launched 4 June 2026, relies on sectoral and privacy legislation rather than a horizontal AI statute; justice uses are not risk-classified.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Prime Minister of Canada — launch of AI for All national AI strategy (4 Jun 2026)", "url": "https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/06/04/prime-minister-carney-launches-ai-all-canadas-new-national-artificial" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Courts apply existing costs and contempt powers. Zhang v. Chen, 2024 BCSC 285 awarded costs against counsel who filed fabricated ChatGPT authorities; Ko v. Li (Ont. S.C.J. 2025) opened contempt proceedings; the Federal Court and Ontario courts have made similar orders. No AI-specific sanctions rule exists.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No Canadian arbitral or mediation institution rule or guideline on AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI continuing professional development requirement found in any Canadian jurisdiction as of 4 September 2026. The Barreau du Québec has delivered voluntary AI training since 25 October 2024 and plans repeat sessions.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Barreau du Québec — regulating AI, work under way", "url": "https://www.barreau.qc.ca/en/new/views-profession/encadrer-ia-multiples-travaux-barreau/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law society guidance requires licensees to understand a tool before use, assess whether it protects confidentiality and privilege, and remain accountable for vendor conduct (LSO white paper, LSA rules of engagement). The Superior Court of Quebec framework applies equivalent duties to court-procured tools.", "documents": [ "lso-licensee-generative-ai-white-paper", "lsa-gen-ai-rules-of-engagement" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [ { "name": "British Columbia", "code": "BC", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Provincial Court guidance of 8 July 2026: verify AI output, answer honestly if the judge asks whether AI was used, and keep personal information out of public tools.", "documents": [ "ca-bc-provincial-court-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Provincial Court's 8 July 2026 eNews guidance is addressed to people preparing for court without a lawyer.", "documents": [ "ca-bc-provincial-court-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society of British Columbia, 'Practice Resource: Guidance on Professional Responsibility and Generative AI' (November 2023).", "documents": [ "lsbc-professional-responsibility-generative-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The Supreme Court of British Columbia has issued no AI practice direction; the position was set judicially in Zhang v Chen, 2024 BCSC 285." }, { "name": "Alberta", "code": "AB", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Tri-court Notice to the Profession and Public of 6 October 2023: caution and verification against authoritative sources, with meaningful human control over AI-prepared submissions.", "documents": [ "ca-ab-tri-court-llm-notice" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society of Alberta, 'Gen AI Rules of Engagement for Canadian Lawyers' (January 2024, updated March 2025) and The Generative AI Playbook.", "documents": [ "lsa-gen-ai-rules-of-engagement" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Joint notice of the Court of Appeal, Court of King's Bench and Alberta Court of Justice, 6 October 2023." }, { "name": "Saskatchewan", "code": "SK", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "GA-PD #12, effective 1 January 2026: the onus is on whoever files or presents materials to verify every AI-derived authority independently against official, commercial or CanLII sources.", "documents": [ "ca-sk-kb-ga-pd-12-artificial-intelligence", "ca-sk-law-society-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society of Saskatchewan, 'Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law' (February 2024).", "documents": [ "ca-sk-law-society-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "binding", "note": "GA-PD #12 warns that fabricated authorities may draw costs or other sanctions.", "documents": [ "ca-sk-kb-ga-pd-12-artificial-intelligence" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Court of King's Bench General Application Practice Directive #12, effective 1 January 2026." }, { "name": "Manitoba", "code": "MB", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Court of King's Bench practice direction of 23 June 2023: materials filed with the court must indicate how artificial intelligence was used in their preparation.", "documents": [ "manitoba-kb-ai-court-submissions-practice-direction" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society of Manitoba, 'Generative Artificial Intelligence: Guideline for Use in the Practice of Law' (April 2024).", "documents": [ "ca-mb-law-society-generative-ai-guideline" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Court of King's Bench practice direction of 23 June 2023, the first Canadian court rule on AI in submissions." }, { "name": "Ontario", "code": "ON", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Rules of Civil Procedure r. 4.06.1(2.1)-(2.2), O. Reg. 384/24: a signed certification of the authenticity of every authority cited in a factum.", "documents": [ "ontario-rules-civil-procedure-factum-authenticity-certification", "ca-on-scj-practice-directions-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Superior Court of Justice consolidated practice directions (12 February 2026) require all AI-assisted legal information to be verified against trusted sources and authorities to be hyperlinked.", "documents": [ "ca-on-scj-practice-directions-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society of Ontario white paper on licensee use of generative AI (April 2024) and the practice note on professional obligations.", "documents": [ "lso-licensee-generative-ai-white-paper" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Superior Court's practice directions warn that misuse may draw costs, dismissal, contempt, reprimand or referral to the Law Society.", "documents": [ "ca-on-scj-practice-directions-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Rules of Civil Procedure r. 4.06.1(2.1)-(2.2) plus the Superior Court's consolidated practice directions of 12 February 2026." }, { "name": "Quebec", "code": "QC", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Notices of the Court of Appeal of Quebec and the Court of Quebec require submissions prepared with AI or large language models to be verified against authoritative sources.", "documents": [ "ca-qc-barreau-generative-ai-practical-guide" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Cour d'appel du Quebec - notice on the use of artificial intelligence (PDF)", "url": "https://courdappelduquebec.ca/fileadmin/dossiers_civils/avis_et_formulaires/eng/avis_utilisation_intelligence_articielle_ENG.pdf" }, { "label": "Cour du Quebec - notice on the integrity of submissions prepared using large language models (PDF)", "url": "https://courduquebec.ca/fileadmin/cour-du-quebec/centre-de-documentation/toutes-les-chambres/en/NoticeIntegriteObservationsCQ_LLM_en.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Superior Court of Quebec, Cadre de gouvernance en matiere d'intelligence artificielle (September 2025): six principles including judicial independence, transparency, caution and rigorous verification by judges and support staff.", "documents": [ "ca-qc-superior-court-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Barreau du Quebec, 'L'intelligence artificielle generative: guide pratique pour une utilisation responsable' (25 October 2024).", "documents": [ "ca-qc-barreau-generative-ai-practical-guide" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The Barreau du Quebec also runs an expert AI committee and an innovation sandbox and has delivered AI training to members since 25 October 2024. The Court of Appeal and Court of Quebec notices carry no published date and are cited as sources rather than records." }, { "name": "New Brunswick", "code": "NB", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Law Society of New Brunswick AI guidance and no court AI practice direction found as of 4 September 2026; only the general professional conduct obligations apply.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The only Canadian jurisdiction in scope with neither law society AI guidance nor a court AI practice direction as of 4 September 2026." }, { "name": "Nova Scotia", "code": "NS", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Nova Scotia Provincial Court directive of 27 October 2023 and the Registrar in Bankruptcy directive of 4 October 2024 require disclosure of AI use in submissions.", "documents": [ "ca-ns-provincial-court-ai-directive", "ca-ns-registrar-bankruptcy-ai-directive", "ca-ns-supreme-court-ai-notice", "ca-ns-court-of-appeal-ai-notice" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Supreme Court notice of 28 February 2025 and Court of Appeal notice of 14 March 2025 require verification of AI-derived authorities.", "documents": [ "ca-ns-supreme-court-ai-notice", "ca-ns-court-of-appeal-ai-notice", "ca-ns-provincial-court-ai-directive", "ca-nsbs-ai-practice-of-law-guide" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Nova Scotia Barristers' Society, 'Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law' (December 2023).", "documents": [ "ca-nsbs-ai-practice-of-law-guide" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Four court instruments: Provincial Court (27 October 2023), Registrar in Bankruptcy (4 October 2024), Supreme Court (28 February 2025) and Court of Appeal (14 March 2025)." }, { "name": "Prince Edward Island", "code": "PE", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society of Prince Edward Island, Artificial Intelligence Guidelines (spring 2025): competence, confidentiality, verification of output and accountability for AI-assisted work.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of PEI - Artificial Intelligence Guidelines (PDF)", "url": "https://lawsocietypei.ca/media/files/LSPEI%20-%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20Guidelines.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No PEI court AI practice direction found as of 4 September 2026. The law society guidelines carry only a season and year, so they are cited as a source rather than recorded as a document." }, { "name": "Newfoundland and Labrador", "code": "NL", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador notice of 12 October 2023: submissions prepared with large language models must be verified against authoritative sources.", "documents": [ "ca-nl-supreme-court-llm-notice", "ca-nl-law-society-ai-in-your-practice" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, 'Artificial Intelligence in Your Practice' (February 2023).", "documents": [ "ca-nl-law-society-ai-in-your-practice" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Supreme Court notice to the profession and general public of 12 October 2023." } ], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Federal Court of Canada — updated AI notice (PDF)", "url": "https://www.fct-cf.ca/Content/assets/pdf/base/FC-Updated-AI-Notice-EN.pdf" }, { "label": "Federal Court of Canada — artificial intelligence page (interim principles)", "url": "https://www.fct-cf.ca/en/pages/law-and-practice/artificial-intelligence" }, { "label": "CJC — Guidelines for the Use of AI in Canadian Courts, Sept 2024 (PDF)", "url": "https://cjc-ccm.ca/sites/default/files/documents/2024/AI%20Guidelines%20-%20FINAL%20-%202024-09%20-%20EN.pdf" }, { "label": "Saskatchewan King's Bench GA-PD #12 (PDF)", "url": "https://sasklawcourts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/KB_GA-PD-12.pdf" }, { "label": "Ontario Superior Court of Justice — consolidated civil practice direction, section K", "url": "https://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/filing-procedures/provincial/consolidated-civil-provincial-practice-direction/" }, { "label": "Alberta Courts — tri-court notice on Large Language Models (PDF)", "url": "https://albertacourts.ca/docs/default-source/qb/npp/tri-court-notice-to-profession-and-public---large-language-models.pdf?sfvrsn=713d5a82_7" }, { "label": "Ontario e-Laws — O. Reg. 384/24 (factum authenticity certification)", "url": "https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/r24384" }, { "label": "Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs — repository of AI initiatives in courts and tribunals", "url": "https://www.fja.gc.ca/COVID-19/Repository-of-AI-Initiatives-in-Courts-and-Tribunals-Repertoire-dinitiatives-IA-dans-les-tribunaux-eng.html" } ] }, { "id": "cl", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/cl", "name": "Chile", "iso": "CL", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Chile regulates judges through article 17 of the Supreme Court's first Judicial Ethics Code, published 19 November 2025, which keeps decisions human and requires verification of AI output. Lawyers are policed by the courts' disciplinary power: the Supreme Court suspended a lawyer for AI-fabricated citations in April 2026.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court (Corte Suprema de Chile)", "url": "https://www.pjud.cl/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Chilean Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados de Chile)", "url": "https://colegioabogados.cl/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge and Innovation", "url": "https://www.minciencia.gob.cl/", "role": "regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule or auto acordado requires parties to disclose AI use in filings. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Supreme Court Rol 23.322-2025 of 22 April 2026 imposed a one-month suspension and a 5 UTM fine for AI-fabricated doctrinal citations under articles 531 and 542 of the Organic Code of Courts; the second civil court of Concepcion fined a lawyer 1 UTM in February 2026. For judges, article 17 of the ethics code requires independent verification.", "documents": [ "cl-corte-suprema-rol-23322-2025-ai-citations", "cl-corte-suprema-acta-244-2025-codigo-etica-judicial" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court Rol 23.322-2025 (Poder Judicial news)", "url": "https://www.pjud.cl/prensa-y-comunicaciones/noticias-del-poder-judicial/145652" }, { "label": "Concepcion fine (CNN Chile)", "url": "https://www.cnnchile.com/pais/abogado-multado-escrito-jurisprudencia-falsa-ia-concepcion/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Judicial Ethics Code, Acta 244-2025, approved at the October 2025 reflection sessions and published on 19 November 2025, article 17: AI is a support tool only; judges must verify any AI result, control data shared with external platforms, and never automatically incorporate AI text. The Code is expressly ethical, not disciplinary.", "documents": [ "cl-corte-suprema-acta-244-2025-codigo-etica-judicial" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Acta 244-2025 (Ley Chile)", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/Navegar?idNorma=1218674" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Acta 244-2025 article 17: judicial decisions are always human and non-delegable; judges may not delegate evidence assessment or resolution of the dispute to AI, and transcription and translation tools are preliminary support only, to be reviewed and certified by a person.", "documents": [ "cl-corte-suprema-acta-244-2025-codigo-etica-judicial" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Acta 244-2025 (Ley Chile)", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/Navegar?idNorma=1218674" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented parties found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 4 September 2026; article 17 of the ethics code addresses judges' data only.", "documents": [ "cl-corte-suprema-acta-244-2025-codigo-etica-judicial" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No competence rule naming AI for lawyers found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "case-law", "note": "In the Concepcion case of February 2026 the lawyer admitted an associate had drafted the brief with AI and that it was filed with minimal review; the court treated the failure of review as a breach of procedural good faith. There is no rule or guidance.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Concepcion fine (CNN Chile)", "url": "https://www.cnnchile.com/pais/abogado-multado-escrito-jurisprudencia-falsa-ia-concepcion/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients of AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Chilean Bar Association, membership of which is voluntary, found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The judiciary launched a unified jurisprudence search engine with AI on 8 July 2025 and runs pilots in Antofagasta, the Supreme Court's third chamber and Mulchen. Article 17 of the ethics code requires human review and certification of automated transcription and translation. No standalone deployment policy was found.", "documents": [ "cl-corte-suprema-acta-244-2025-codigo-etica-judicial" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Poder Judicial: AI jurisprudence search", "url": "https://www.pjud.cl/prensa-y-comunicaciones/noticias-del-poder-judicial/128371" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific data-protection guidance relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026; the new personal data protection agency created by Ley 21.719 is not yet operative.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Bill 16821-19, introduced by executive message and merged with an earlier bill, regulates AI systems by risk tiers and creates a Technical Advisory Council. It was approved by the Chamber of Deputies and has been in the Senate's Future Challenges Committee since October 2025.", "documents": [ "cl-boletin-16821-19-ai-systems-bill" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Camara de Diputados: Boletin 16821-19", "url": "https://www.camara.cl/legislacion/proyectosdeley/tramitacion.aspx?prmID=17429&prmBOLETIN=16821-19" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Courts use their disciplinary power under article 531 of the Organic Code of Courts, and article 542 for the Supreme Court: Rol 23.322-2025 suspended a lawyer for one month and fined 5 UTM on 22 April 2026, and the second civil court of Concepcion fined 1 UTM in February 2026.", "documents": [ "cl-corte-suprema-rol-23322-2025-ai-citations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court Rol 23.322-2025 (24horas)", "url": "https://www.24horas.cl/actualidad/nacional/corte-suprema-suspende-abogada-citas-falsas-inteligencia-artificial" }, { "label": "Article 531 analysis (Diario Constitucional)", "url": "https://www.diarioconstitucional.cl/articulos/inteligencia-artificial-fuentes-inexistentes-y-potestad-disciplinaria-el-nuevo-alcance-del-articulo-531-del-codigo-organico-de-tribunales/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI rules from CAM Santiago or other Chilean ADR bodies found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training for judges or lawyers found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No procurement or vendor due-diligence guidance for legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Acta 244-2025 Codigo de Etica Judicial (Ley Chile)", "url": "https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/Navegar?idNorma=1218674" }, { "label": "Supreme Court Rol 23.322-2025 (Poder Judicial news)", "url": "https://www.pjud.cl/prensa-y-comunicaciones/noticias-del-poder-judicial/145652" }, { "label": "Boletin 16821-19 tramitacion", "url": "https://www.camara.cl/legislacion/proyectosdeley/tramitacion.aspx?prmID=17429&prmBOLETIN=16821-19" }, { "label": "Concepcion civil court fine (CNN Chile)", "url": "https://www.cnnchile.com/pais/abogado-multado-escrito-jurisprudencia-falsa-ia-concepcion/" } ] }, { "id": "cn", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/cn", "name": "China", "iso": "CN", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 China governs court AI top-down. The Supreme People's Court Opinions of 8 December 2022 make AI auxiliary only and forbid it from substituting for judges. The Cyberspace Administration's generative-AI measures and content-labelling rules apply horizontally. A Beijing Tongzhou case in the national Case Database sets consequences for AI-fabricated filings.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme People's Court", "url": "https://www.court.gov.cn/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Cyberspace Administration of China", "url": "https://www.cac.gov.cn/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.cn/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "All China Lawyers Association", "url": "https://www.acla.org.cn/", "role": "bar" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court, selected for the People's Court Case Database in December 2025: a lawyer filed two AI-fabricated precedents; the court wrote criticism into the judgment and stated that litigants submitting unverified AI-generated cases bear consequences, from criticism to fines under Civil Procedure Law article 114 in serious cases.", "documents": [ "cn-beijing-tongzhou-court-ai-fabricated-cases-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "China News Service report", "url": "https://www.chinanews.com.cn/fz/2026/01-15/10552373.shtml" }, { "label": "Ministry of Justice legal-publicity repost", "url": "http://legalinfo.moj.gov.cn/pub/sfbzhfx/zhfxfzzx/fzzxyw/202601/t20260116_530661.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Supreme People's Court Opinions of 8 December 2022: AI output is reference only, judges remain fully accountable, users may decline AI assistance, and security, lawfulness, fairness and transparency principles apply. The Opinions set targets of integrated AI support by 2025 and a full framework by 2030.", "documents": [ "cn-spc-opinions-ai-judicial-application-2022" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SPC English summary (official)", "url": "https://english.court.gov.cn/2022-12/12/c_838810.htm" }, { "label": "China Justice Observer bilingual text", "url": "https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/law/x/the-supreme-people-s-court-the-opinions-on-regulating-and-strengthening-the-applications-of-artificial-intelligence-in-the-judicial-field-20221208" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Supreme People's Court auxiliary-adjudication principle: AI shall not substitute for the judge in any case, and results are supplementary references only.", "documents": [ "cn-spc-opinions-ai-judicial-application-2022" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SPC English summary (official)", "url": "https://english.court.gov.cn/2022-12/12/c_838810.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "case-law", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "cn-beijing-tongzhou-court-ai-fabricated-cases-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "China News Service report", "url": "https://www.chinanews.com.cn/fz/2026/01-15/10552373.shtml" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "case-law", "note": "No AI-specific evidence rule; courts have sanctioned AI-fabricated evidence in Dawu County in November 2025 and Taizhou in December 2025. The Cyberspace Administration labelling measures in force from 1 September 2025 require explicit and metadata labels on AI-generated content, which aids authentication.", "documents": [ "cn-cac-ai-content-labeling-measures-2025", "cn-beijing-tongzhou-court-ai-fabricated-cases-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CAC labelling measures (official)", "url": "https://www.cac.gov.cn/2025-03/14/c_1743654684782215.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No All China Lawyers Association or Ministry of Justice guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The All China Lawyers Association site lists only an industry-observation article on AI; no guidance was located before the research budget ran out, and lawyer-facing AI guidance could not be confirmed either way.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ACLA article listing", "url": "https://www.acla.org.cn/info/31e8be5a44a0484c82c4f4759c32cef4" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Supreme People's Court Opinions mandate smart-court AI integration, with full support targeted by 2025 and a regulatory framework by 2030, subject to auxiliary-only, security and transparency principles.", "documents": [ "cn-spc-opinions-ai-judicial-application-2022" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SPC English summary (official)", "url": "https://english.court.gov.cn/2022-12/12/c_838810.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector-specific guidance. The Personal Information Protection Law of 2021 and the Cyberspace Administration interim measures, which protect user inputs and grant deletion rights, apply generally.", "documents": [ "cn-cac-interim-measures-generative-ai-2023" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CAC Interim Measures on generative AI (official)", "url": "https://www.cac.gov.cn/2023-07/13/c_1690898327029107.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services, issued 10 July 2023 and in force 15 August 2023, require security assessment, algorithm filing, lawful training data and labelling, and are supplemented by the labelling measures in force from 1 September 2025. There is no justice-specific risk tier.", "documents": [ "cn-cac-interim-measures-generative-ai-2023", "cn-cac-ai-content-labeling-measures-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CAC Interim Measures (official)", "url": "https://www.cac.gov.cn/2023-07/13/c_1690898327029107.htm" }, { "label": "CAC labelling measures (official)", "url": "https://www.cac.gov.cn/2025-03/14/c_1743654684782215.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The Tongzhou District court criticised counsel in the judgment without a fine because the consequences were minor; Case Database guidance from December 2025 anticipates fines under Civil Procedure Law article 114 for serious cases, and Dawu County issued an admonishment for AI-fabricated evidence in November 2025.", "documents": [ "cn-beijing-tongzhou-court-ai-fabricated-cases-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "China News Service report", "url": "https://www.chinanews.com.cn/fz/2026/01-15/10552373.shtml" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "CIETAC and SCIA homepages showed no AI guideline on 4 September 2026; institutional AI guidelines reported in secondary sources could not be verified before the research budget ran out.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Supreme People's Court Opinions require judicial AI products to be lawfully developed, examined by authoritative bodies, and to disclose their capabilities and limitations. This applies to courts' own systems rather than to law firms.", "documents": [ "cn-spc-opinions-ai-judicial-application-2022" ], "sources": [ { "label": "China Justice Observer bilingual text", "url": "https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/law/x/the-supreme-people-s-court-the-opinions-on-regulating-and-strengthening-the-applications-of-artificial-intelligence-in-the-judicial-field-20221208" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "SPC Opinions on AI in the judicial field (official English summary)", "url": "https://english.court.gov.cn/2022-12/12/c_838810.htm" }, { "label": "SPC Opinions bilingual text (China Justice Observer)", "url": "https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/law/x/the-supreme-people-s-court-the-opinions-on-regulating-and-strengthening-the-applications-of-artificial-intelligence-in-the-judicial-field-20221208" }, { "label": "CAC Interim Measures on Generative AI", "url": "https://www.cac.gov.cn/2023-07/13/c_1690898327029107.htm" }, { "label": "CAC AI-content Labelling Measures", "url": "https://www.cac.gov.cn/2025-03/14/c_1743654684782215.htm" }, { "label": "Tongzhou court AI-fabricated cases report", "url": "https://www.chinanews.com.cn/fz/2026/01-15/10552373.shtml" } ] }, { "id": "co", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/co", "name": "Colombia", "iso": "CO", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Colombia is the region's leading case-law jurisdiction: Constitutional Court judgment T-323/2024 set criteria for judges' use of ChatGPT and ordered guidelines; the Superior Council of the Judiciary's Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 binds judges to verify and disclose AI use; the Supreme Court and Council of State have fined lawyers and annulled a judgment.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Superior Council of the Judiciary (Consejo Superior de la Judicatura)", "url": "https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Constitutional Court (Corte Constitucional)", "url": "https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia)", "url": "https://cortesuprema.gov.co/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC)", "url": "https://www.sic.gov.co/", "role": "data protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requires litigants or lawyers to disclose AI use in filings. Judges must disclose AI use in decisions under Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 10, but that is a judicial duty rather than a filing rule.", "documents": [ "co-csj-acuerdo-pcsja24-12243" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The Supreme Court's civil cassation chamber fined a lawyer 15 minimum monthly wages for a review petition citing ten non-existent rulings generated by AI, and the Council of State held in June 2026 that all AI output must be humanly verified and lawyers remain fully responsible. For judges, Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 9 is binding.", "documents": [ "co-corte-suprema-stc17832-2025", "co-consejo-de-estado-ai-rules-2026", "co-csj-acuerdo-pcsja24-12243" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court fine (El Tiempo)", "url": "https://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/cortes/la-inedita-sancion-de-la-corte-suprema-a-un-abogado-que-uso-la-inteligencia-artificial-para-redactar-un-recurso-de-revision-3532886" }, { "label": "Council of State rules (Infobae)", "url": "https://www.infobae.com/colombia/2026/06/09/consejo-de-estado-fijo-reglas-para-usar-la-inteligencia-artificial-en-la-justicia-tras-caso-de-abogado-que-habria-inventado-sentencias-con-chatgpt/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 of 16 December 2024 applies to all judges and employees: no free or commercial chatbots, no AI for evidence assessment or deciding, human verification of every output, and express disclosure in the file of tool, model, date, purpose and prompts. It was issued to comply with judgment T-323/2024.", "documents": [ "co-csj-acuerdo-pcsja24-12243", "co-corte-constitucional-t-323-2024" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/documents/164295699/174277484/PCSJA24-12243.-USO-Y-APROVECHAMIENTO-DE-IA-EN-LA-RAMA-JUDICIAL.pdf" }, { "label": "Rama Judicial AI page", "url": "https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/web/utdi/inteligencia-artificial1" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "binding", "note": "Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 8(3)-(4): judges must not use AI to assess evidence, scrutinise facts, make value judgments or resolve legal problems, nor motivate or adopt decisions based solely on AI answers. Judgment T-323/2024 held that AI cannot substitute the judge's reasoning.", "documents": [ "co-csj-acuerdo-pcsja24-12243", "co-corte-constitucional-t-323-2024", "co-corte-suprema-stc17832-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/documents/164295699/174277484/PCSJA24-12243.-USO-Y-APROVECHAMIENTO-DE-IA-EN-LA-RAMA-JUDICIAL.pdf" }, { "label": "Sentencia T-323/2024", "url": "https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2024/T-323-24.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented parties on AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026; Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 bars judges from using AI to assess evidence, which is a different question.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "Judiciary only: Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 8(6) forbids entering personal, sensitive or confidential data into AI tools that retain, share or retrain on inputs. No bar guidance for lawyers on client data in AI tools was found.", "documents": [ "co-csj-acuerdo-pcsja24-12243" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/documents/164295699/174277484/PCSJA24-12243.-USO-Y-APROVECHAMIENTO-DE-IA-EN-LA-RAMA-JUDICIAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No competence rule naming AI for lawyers; Colombia has no unified bar association. Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 7 imposes prior-knowledge duties on judicial staff only.", "documents": [ "co-csj-acuerdo-pcsja24-12243" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted work in law firms found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients of AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "Colombia has no mandatory bar; no practitioner-facing generative-AI guidance from the Ministry of Justice or the National Commission of Judicial Discipline was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 chapter 3 governs institutional AI projects: suitability analysis, no personal data in training, privacy impact assessments, reporting through the Digital Transformation Unit and monitoring. The judiciary deploys transcription and summarisation tools.", "documents": [ "co-csj-acuerdo-pcsja24-12243" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Rama Judicial AI page", "url": "https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/web/utdi/inteligencia-artificial1" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "Circular Externa 002 of 21 August 2024 sets binding guidelines for processing personal data in AI systems, covering suitability, necessity, reasonableness and proportionality, risk identification and privacy by design. It is not legal-sector specific.", "documents": [ "co-sic-circular-externa-002-2024" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SIC Circular Externa 002/2024", "url": "https://sedeelectronica.sic.gov.co/transparencia/normativa/circular-externa-2-de-2024-de-la-superintendencia-de-industria-y-comercio-lineamientos-sobre-el-tratamiento-de-datos" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Bill 043/2025 in the Senate proposed a national AI supervisory authority and risk tiers but was archived at the end of the legislature; the government re-filed substantially the same text as bill 025/2026 in August 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "MinCiencias on the 2025 bill", "url": "https://minciencias.gov.co/sala_de_prensa/colombia-le-vuelve-apostar-al-uso-etico-la-inteligencia-artificial-minciencias-radica" }, { "label": "Semana on the 2026 bill", "url": "https://www.semana.com/economia/empresas/articulo/mas-controles-o-mas-innovacion-el-dilema-que-abre-la-nueva-ley-de-ia/202600/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The Supreme Court annulled a Sincelejo tribunal ruling built on non-existent citations as a due-process violation on 5 November 2025 and fined a lawyer 15 minimum monthly wages; the Council of State referred a lawyer to the Bogota sectional commission of judicial discipline in June 2026.", "documents": [ "co-corte-suprema-stc17832-2025", "co-consejo-de-estado-ai-rules-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court annulment (Infobae)", "url": "https://www.infobae.com/colombia/2025/11/12/historico-fallo-de-la-corte-suprema-sobre-el-uso-de-la-ia-en-colombia-por-primera-vez-anulo-una-decision-judicial-apoyada-en-citas-falsas/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No Colombian arbitral institution AI rules found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "Judiciary only: Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 article 13 requires the Rodrigo Lara Bonilla Judicial School to run an AI training plan, and the November 2025 Supreme Court ruling ordered the School to disseminate the decision. There is no mandatory continuing education for lawyers.", "documents": [ "co-csj-acuerdo-pcsja24-12243", "co-corte-suprema-stc17832-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/documents/164295699/174277484/PCSJA24-12243.-USO-Y-APROVECHAMIENTO-DE-IA-EN-LA-RAMA-JUDICIAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "Judiciary only: Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 articles 6, 8(2) and 11 require suitability analysis before use, avoidance of tools whose training data and processing are opaque, privacy impact assessments and contractual data-protection safeguards for institutional AI solutions.", "documents": [ "co-csj-acuerdo-pcsja24-12243" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/documents/164295699/174277484/PCSJA24-12243.-USO-Y-APROVECHAMIENTO-DE-IA-EN-LA-RAMA-JUDICIAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Sentencia T-323 de 2024", "url": "https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/2024/T-323-24.htm" }, { "label": "Acuerdo PCSJA24-12243 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/documents/164295699/174277484/PCSJA24-12243.-USO-Y-APROVECHAMIENTO-DE-IA-EN-LA-RAMA-JUDICIAL.pdf" }, { "label": "Rama Judicial AI governance page", "url": "https://www.ramajudicial.gov.co/web/utdi/inteligencia-artificial1" }, { "label": "Supreme Court annulment (Infobae)", "url": "https://www.infobae.com/colombia/2025/11/12/historico-fallo-de-la-corte-suprema-sobre-el-uso-de-la-ia-en-colombia-por-primera-vez-anulo-una-decision-judicial-apoyada-en-citas-falsas/" }, { "label": "Council of State AI rules (Infobae)", "url": "https://www.infobae.com/colombia/2026/06/09/consejo-de-estado-fijo-reglas-para-usar-la-inteligencia-artificial-en-la-justicia-tras-caso-de-abogado-que-habria-inventado-sentencias-con-chatgpt/" }, { "label": "SIC Circular Externa 002/2024", "url": "https://sedeelectronica.sic.gov.co/transparencia/normativa/circular-externa-2-de-2024-de-la-superintendencia-de-industria-y-comercio-lineamientos-sobre-el-tratamiento-de-datos" } ] }, { "id": "cr", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/cr", "name": "Costa Rica", "iso": "CR", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Costa Rica's judiciary deploys AI operationally, including document classification in debt-collection courts since 2021, chatbots and predictive analysis of constitutional rulings, and says it evaluates tools against the UNESCO AI ethics recommendation and data-protection law, but no policy, bar guidance, statute or sanctions case on AI in legal practice was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice (Poder Judicial)", "url": "https://pj.poder-judicial.go.cr/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Costa Rican Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de Costa Rica)", "url": "https://www.abogados.or.cr/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Data Protection Agency (PRODHAB)", "url": "https://www.prodhab.go.cr/", "role": "data protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Corte Plena or Superior Council guideline for judges' use of AI was found; the judiciary cites the UNESCO 2021 recommendation as its evaluation framework. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "La Nacion on AI in the judiciary", "url": "https://www.nacion.com/sucesos/judiciales/inteligencia-artificial-opera-en-el-poder-judicial/KQCBHSPIVFHN7E3IM5X22AJADA/story/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Costa Rican Bar Association found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "AI is deployed: a document classifier processed 1.3 million filings in 2024 and a constitutional-chamber predictive tool was built with the national university in 2025. The judiciary's transparency portal carries a declaration of AI use page which could not be opened, so a formal deployment policy is unconfirmed.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Poder Judicial: AI in debt-collection courts", "url": "https://pj.poder-judicial.go.cr/index.php/component/content/article/760-poder-judicial-implementa-inteligencia-artificial-para-disminuir-circulante-en-materia-cobratoria" }, { "label": "Transparency portal: declaration of AI use", "url": "https://transparencia.poder-judicial.go.cr/index.php/declaracion-de-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Ley 8968 applies generally; no guidance from the data protection agency on AI relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "AI bills have been reported in the Legislative Assembly but none could be verified against official records in this research window; no statute is in force.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Poder Judicial: AI in debt-collection courts", "url": "https://pj.poder-judicial.go.cr/index.php/component/content/article/760-poder-judicial-implementa-inteligencia-artificial-para-disminuir-circulante-en-materia-cobratoria" }, { "label": "El Financiero: AI in the judiciary and law firms", "url": "https://www.elfinancierocr.com/tecnologia/la-ia-recibe-sentencia-asi-se-usa-en-el-poder/6BCSVBTDSREWXKUGTMBB57WIGE/story/" } ] }, { "id": "ci", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ci", "name": "Côte d'Ivoire", "iso": "CI", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Côte d’Ivoire has no court, judiciary or bar rule on AI in legal practice located. The SNIA 2030 national AI strategy, published by the Ministry of Digital Transition and Digitalisation, sets non-binding investment, inclusion and governance pillars and envisages standards and a national AI agency.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Ordre des Avocats de Côte d'Ivoire", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice and Human Rights", "url": "https://justice.gouv.ci/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Autorité de Régulation des Télécommunications/TIC de Côte d'Ivoire (ARTCI)", "url": "https://artci.ci/", "role": "data/ICT regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "ARTCI is the ICT/data authority, but no ARTCI guidance applying data-protection rules to AI or legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ARTCI", "url": "https://artci.ci/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SNIA 2030, published in 2024 by the Ministry of Digital Transition and Digitalisation, sets investment, inclusion and governance pillars, including standards, supervisory authorities, data privacy and algorithmic-bias safeguards. It is a strategy, not an enacted AI law.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Watch — Côte d’Ivoire’s national strategy for AI", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/cote-divoires-national-strategy-for-ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Watch — Côte d’Ivoire’s national strategy for AI", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/cote-divoires-national-strategy-for-ai" }, { "label": "ARTCI", "url": "https://artci.ci/" }, { "label": "Côte d’Ivoire Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://justice.gouv.ci/" } ] }, { "id": "hr", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/hr", "name": "Croatia", "iso": "HR", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Croatia's only binding text touching court AI is the Rulebook on anonymisation and publication of court decisions, in force 1 January 2025, which institutionalises the ANON AI system with human review. The Croatian Bar has issued no guidance of its own but republished the CEPEJ and CCBE guides to members.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Croatian Bar Association (Hrvatska odvjetnicka komora)", "url": "https://www.hok-cba.hr/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia", "url": "https://www.vsrh.hr/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice, Public Administration and Digital Transformation", "url": "https://mpudt.gov.hr/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Agency (AZOP)", "url": "https://azop.hr/", "role": "data protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No Croatian rule or reported case; the Croatian Bar republished the CCBE guide, which sets a verification expectation.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No Croatian judicial guidance exists; the Croatian Bar published the CEPEJ generative-AI guidelines for courts on 11 March 2026 as the applicable reference. The anonymisation Rulebook keeps the judge responsible for additional anonymisation beyond the ANON proposal.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "hr-pravilnik-anonimizacija-sudskih-odluka-nn-124-24" ], "sources": [ { "label": "HOK post on the CEPEJ guidelines (official bar site)", "url": "https://www.hok-cba.hr/hok/smjernice-cepej-a-o-uporabi-generativne-umjetne-inteligencije-za-sudove/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No national rule; EU AI Act Annex III point 8 applies.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No bar-authored rule; the Croatian Bar republished the CCBE generative-AI guide and the CCBE Technical Guide on AI tools in May 2026, which cover confidentiality, hosting options and data residency.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "HOK post on the CCBE technical guide (official bar site)", "url": "https://www.hok-cba.hr/hok/tehnicki-vodic-ccbe-a-o-primjeni-alata-i-modela-umjetne-inteligencije-u-odvjetnistvu/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific competence rule in the Croatian Code of Attorney Ethics was found; the bar academy runs AI seminars and conducted a 2025 member survey on AI use.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "HOK survey call (official bar site)", "url": "https://www.hok-cba.hr/hok/poziv-na-sudjelovanje-u-istrazivanju-o-stanju-umjetne-inteligencije-u-odvjetnistvu/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Croatian Bar has not issued its own generative-AI guidance as of 4 September 2026; it disseminates CCBE and CEPEJ documents to members without additional recommendations.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "HOK post on the CCBE technical guide (official bar site)", "url": "https://www.hok-cba.hr/hok/tehnicki-vodic-ccbe-a-o-primjeni-alata-i-modela-umjetne-inteligencije-u-odvjetnistvu/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Rulebook on the anonymisation, publication and search of anonymised court decisions, in force 1 January 2025: the ANON AI system anonymises, extracts metadata and classifies decisions automatically at first instance, while higher-court and Supreme Court decisions are anonymised by authorised staff from ANON's proposals.", "documents": [ "hr-pravilnik-anonimizacija-sudskih-odluka-nn-124-24" ], "sources": [ { "label": "IUS-INFO analysis of the Rulebook (secondary)", "url": "https://www.iusinfo.hr/aktualno/u-sredistu/uz-novi-pravilnik-o-anonimiziranju-sudskih-odluka-uvo%C4%91enje-umjetne-inteligencije-i-ponovni-pokusaj-uspostavljanja-ravnoteze-transparentnosti-pravosu%C4%91a-63398" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The data-protection agency's AI Regulation page states that every processing of personal data in AI systems at all phases must comply with the GDPR, that the AI Act and GDPR are complementary, and that deployers must ensure AI literacy. It is general rather than legal-sector specific.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AZOP on the AI Regulation (official)", "url": "https://azop.hr/uredba-o-umjetnoj-inteligenciji/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly; a Croatian implementing act designating competent authorities could not be verified, and the data-protection agency's page does not mention one.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "AZOP on the AI Regulation (official)", "url": "https://azop.hr/uredba-o-umjetnoj-inteligenciji/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Croatian decision on hallucinated citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched because the research budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026; bar academy seminars are voluntary.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Croatian Bar republished the CCBE Technical Guide on selecting and hosting AI tools in March 2026; there is no Croatian rule.", "documents": [ "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "HOK post on the CCBE technical guide (official bar site)", "url": "https://www.hok-cba.hr/hok/tehnicki-vodic-ccbe-a-o-primjeni-alata-i-modela-umjetne-inteligencije-u-odvjetnistvu/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "IUS-INFO: Rulebook on anonymisation of court decisions and ANON", "url": "https://www.iusinfo.hr/aktualno/u-sredistu/uz-novi-pravilnik-o-anonimiziranju-sudskih-odluka-uvo%C4%91enje-umjetne-inteligencije-i-ponovni-pokusaj-uspostavljanja-ravnoteze-transparentnosti-pravosu%C4%91a-63398" }, { "label": "HOK: CEPEJ guidelines on generative AI for courts", "url": "https://www.hok-cba.hr/hok/smjernice-cepej-a-o-uporabi-generativne-umjetne-inteligencije-za-sudove/" }, { "label": "HOK: CCBE technical guide on AI tools", "url": "https://www.hok-cba.hr/hok/tehnicki-vodic-ccbe-a-o-primjeni-alata-i-modela-umjetne-inteligencije-u-odvjetnistvu/" }, { "label": "AZOP: AI Regulation page", "url": "https://azop.hr/uredba-o-umjetnoj-inteligenciji/" } ] }, { "id": "cu", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/cu", "name": "Cuba", "iso": "CU", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Cuba has no verified AI rule for legal practice. Searches of the Tribunal Supremo Popular, Union of Jurists, parliament, official gazette and communications materials found no AI filing rule, judicial guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, legal-AI sanction or horizontal AI statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "People's Supreme Court (Tribunal Supremo Popular)", "url": "http://www.tsp.gob.cu/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Union of Jurists of Cuba", "role": "legal profession" }, { "name": "Official Gazette", "url": "https://www.gacetaoficial.gob.cu/", "role": "official gazette" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Cuba has general personal-information and cybersecurity rules; no AI-specific guidance relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Cuba", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=CU" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "National Assembly of Cuba", "url": "https://www.parlamentocubano.gob.cu/" }, { "label": "Official Gazette of Cuba", "url": "https://www.gacetaoficial.gob.cu/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Cuba", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=CU" } ] }, { "id": "cy", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/cy", "name": "Cyprus", "iso": "CY", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Cyprus has no rule, guidance or reported decision on AI in legal practice: the EU AI Act applies directly, a National AI Taskforce was formed in January 2025 and the Cyprus Bar Association has limited itself to seminars. Coverage here is thin because the research budget ran out; several categories remain unclear.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Cyprus Bar Association", "url": "http://www.cyprusbarassociation.org/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Cyprus", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov.cy/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Commissioner for Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://www.dataprotection.gov.cy/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Deputy Ministry of Research, Innovation and Digital Policy", "url": "https://www.dmrid.gov.cy/", "role": "AI Act authority" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No judicial AI guidance was located; the Supreme Court and e-justice sites were not checked because the research budget was exhausted.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No national rule; EU AI Act Annex III point 8 applies.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Cyprus Bar guidance found as of 4 September 2026; the CCBE guide is the available reference.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific competence rule found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "Legal 500 Cyprus reported in September 2025 that there are no specific guidelines, voluntary standards or ethical principles on AI; the Cyprus Bar Association has run seminars and training only.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "G.Z. Georgiou summary of the Legal 500 Cyprus AI chapter (secondary)", "url": "https://gzg.com.cy/insights/insights/legal-500-guides-artificial-intelligence-in-cyprus/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not checked because the research budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No Commissioner guidance specific to legal AI was located; the Commissioner's site was not checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly. The Council of Ministers formed a National AI Taskforce in January 2025 and is revising the national AI strategy; a national implementing law and competent-authority designation could not be verified.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal 500 Cyprus AI chapter (secondary)", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/cyprus-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Cypriot decision on hallucinated citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched because the research budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector vendor guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Legal 500 Cyprus: Artificial Intelligence chapter", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/cyprus-artificial-intelligence/" }, { "label": "G.Z. Georgiou: Legal 500 Cyprus AI summary", "url": "https://gzg.com.cy/insights/insights/legal-500-guides-artificial-intelligence-in-cyprus/" }, { "label": "Cyprus Bar Association", "url": "http://www.cyprusbarassociation.org/" } ] }, { "id": "cz", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/cz", "name": "Czechia", "iso": "CZ", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Czechia regulates legal AI through Czech Bar Association guidance plus directly applicable EU law. The Bar's Stanovisko on AI in legal services, of September 2023, is permissive but requires confidentiality, prior client consent and undiminished lawyer responsibility. On 1 December 2025 the Constitutional Court fined a lawyer CZK 25,000 for citing non-existent decisions.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Czech Bar Association [Česká advokátní komora, ČAK]", "url": "https://www.cak.cz/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Constitutional Court [Ústavní soud]", "url": "https://www.usoud.cz/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Office for Personal Data Protection [Úřad pro ochranu osobních údajů, ÚOOÚ]", "url": "https://uoou.gov.cz/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice [Ministerstvo spravedlnosti]", "url": "https://justice.cz/", "role": "judiciary" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not verified. No Czech court rule requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was encountered, but the civil and constitutional procedure rules could not be checked without search access.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ČAK's 2023 Stanovisko treats AI output as unpredictable and potentially inaccurate, and states that using AI leaves the lawyer's statutory and professional responsibility wholly untouched. The Constitutional Court reinforced this in I. ÚS 3004/25, holding counsel fully answerable for hallucinated arguments.", "documents": [ "cz-cak-stanovisko-ai-legal-services", "cz-usoud-i-us-3004-25-fabricated-citations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ČAK — Stanovisko k užívání umělé inteligence (AI) při poskytování právních služeb (PDF)", "url": "https://www.cak.cz/cs/download/priloha_4_2023_09_-ai_stanovisko.pdf" }, { "label": "Ústavní soud — I. ÚS 3004/25 (NALUS)", "url": "https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_1" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No Ministerstvo spravedlnosti, Nejvyšší soud or Ústavní soud guideline on judges' use of generative AI could be checked; usoud.cz refused connection during this session.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no discovery search was available. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Czechia as a Council of Europe member but is not a domestic instrument.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's web-search budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's web-search budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ČAK's Stanovisko (point 5) warns that entering client information into AI tools — including merely to let the tool learn — will most likely breach the statutory duty of confidentiality [povinnost mlčenlivosti] under the Act on Advocacy, and that the lawyer is always responsible for compliance.", "documents": [ "cz-cak-stanovisko-ai-legal-services" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ČAK — Stanovisko k užívání AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.cak.cz/cs/download/priloha_4_2023_09_-ai_stanovisko.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "EU AI Act Art. 4 AI literacy duty applies directly to Czech law firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025. Domestic conduct rules do not name AI; ČAK's Stanovisko instead stresses undiminished professional responsibility.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no Czech rule on supervising AI-assisted work by trainees [koncipienti] or staff could be checked without search access.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ČAK's Stanovisko (point 6) requires prior client consent before processing client information in AI, and specifies its content: the client must expressly acknowledge that AI may behave unpredictably and expressly agree that data — even anonymised — may be shared with unspecified similar systems.", "documents": [ "cz-cak-stanovisko-ai-legal-services" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ČAK — Stanovisko k užívání AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.cak.cz/cs/download/priloha_4_2023_09_-ai_stanovisko.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's web-search budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ČAK's Stanovisko (points 2–4) states AI in any form cannot be a provider of legal services under § 1 of the Act on Advocacy; answers resolving a concrete legal problem are reserved legal advice, and website AI implying advice from a qualified lawyer is 'highly inappropriate'.", "documents": [ "cz-cak-stanovisko-ai-legal-services" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ČAK — Stanovisko k užívání AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.cak.cz/cs/download/priloha_4_2023_09_-ai_stanovisko.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ČAK issued 'Stanovisko k užívání umělé inteligence (AI) při poskytování právních služeb' (PDF dated 20 Sept 2023, author Martin Maisner), a six-point non-binding opinion. A broader 'Strategie ČAK pro oblast umělé inteligence' was board-approved in structure by 7 July 2026, with formal adoption expected September 2026.", "documents": [ "cz-cak-stanovisko-ai-legal-services" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ČAK — Stanovisko k užívání AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.cak.cz/cs/download/priloha_4_2023_09_-ai_stanovisko.pdf" }, { "label": "Právní prostor — Strategie ČAK pro umělou inteligenci (21 July 2026)", "url": "https://www.pravniprostor.cz/clanky/ostatni-pravo/strategie-ceske-advokatni-komory-pro-umelou-inteligenci" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no published policy on the Czech courts' own AI deployment could be checked; usoud.cz refused connection during this session.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "ÚOOÚ's site was checked on 4 September 2026 and carries no dedicated AI guidance section; its AI coverage relays EDPB output (e.g. a 9 July 2026 item on the EDPB anonymisation and generative-AI web-scraping guidelines). No legal-sector-specific AI guidance found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ÚOOÚ — official site", "url": "https://uoou.gov.cz/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "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. Czechia's designated national supervisory authorities were not verified in this session.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2026/1744", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj/eng" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Constitutional Court, I. ÚS 3004/25 (1 Dec 2025), fined counsel Mgr. Pavel Kehl CZK 25,000 — a quarter of the CZK 100,000 maximum, as a first offence — over a constitutional complaint citing non-existent decisions (III. ÚS 2987/18, III. ÚS 3881/18, II. ÚS 2264/14). Anglicisms and inconsistent citation formatting indicated AI drafting.", "documents": [ "cz-usoud-i-us-3004-25-fabricated-citations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ústavní soud — I. ÚS 3004/25 full text (NALUS)", "url": "https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_1" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no rule of the Arbitration Court attached to the Czech Chamber of Commerce could be checked without search access.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty applies to Czech firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025. No domestic CLE rule names AI, but the draft ČAK AI Strategy proposes mandatory AI training for trainee lawyers [koncipienti], expected to be presented September 2026.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Právní prostor — Strategie ČAK pro umělou inteligenci", "url": "https://www.pravniprostor.cz/clanky/ostatni-pravo/strategie-ceske-advokatni-komory-pro-umelou-inteligenci" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The draft ČAK AI Strategy is reported to include minimum IT standards for lawyers and legal-tech developers, but the text was not public and could not be verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "ČAK — Stanovisko k užívání umělé inteligence (AI) při poskytování právních služeb (PDF, Sept 2023)", "url": "https://www.cak.cz/cs/download/priloha_4_2023_09_-ai_stanovisko.pdf" }, { "label": "Ústavní soud — I. ÚS 3004/25, 1 Dec 2025 (NALUS full text)", "url": "https://nalus.usoud.cz/Search/GetText.aspx?sz=1-3004-25_1" }, { "label": "Právní prostor — Strategie České advokátní komory pro umělou inteligenci (21 July 2026)", "url": "https://www.pravniprostor.cz/clanky/ostatni-pravo/strategie-ceske-advokatni-komory-pro-umelou-inteligenci" }, { "label": "ÚOOÚ — Office for Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://uoou.gov.cz/" } ] }, { "id": "dk", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/dk", "name": "Denmark", "iso": "DK", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Denmark was the first EU state to pass a national AI Act supplement, LOV nr 467 of 14 May 2025, which makes the Court Administration supervisor of the courts' non-judicial AI use. Professional guidance comes from Danske Advokater. In December 2025 the disciplinary board fined a lawyer DKK 10,000 over non-existent judgments.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Danish Bar and Law Society [Advokatsamfundet] and its Bar Council [Advokatrådet]", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.dk/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Disciplinary Board of the Bar [Advokatnævnet]", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.dk/advokatnaevnet/", "role": "disciplinary" }, { "name": "Danish Court Administration [Domstolsstyrelsen]", "url": "https://www.domstol.dk/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Danish Agency for Digital Government [Digitaliseringsstyrelsen]", "url": "https://digst.dk/tilsyn/ai-forordningen/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Danish Data Protection Agency [Datatilsynet]", "url": "https://www.datatilsynet.dk/regler-og-vejledning/kunstig-intelligens", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Danish court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in pleadings as of 4 September 2026; the Administration of Justice Act [retsplejeloven] is silent.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "No express rule, but Advokatnævnet held in December 2025 that citing two non-existent judgments (U.2006.2042V and U.2008.1166H) showed a lack of due care and breached good lawyer conduct [god advokatskik], rejecting the 'typing error' explanation and imposing a DKK 10,000 fine.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Djøfbladet — Danish lawyer fined for invented judgments (May 2026)", "url": "https://www.djoefbladet.dk/artikler/2026/05/dansk-advokat-boede-opdigtede-domme" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No published Domstolsstyrelsen guideline for judges' use of generative AI found. LOV nr 467/2025 splits supervision: Domstolsstyrelsen for courts' non-judicial AI use, the individual court for AI used in its judicial capacity — a structure designed to protect judicial independence.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Danish Judges Association — consultation response on the AI-loven", "url": "https://www.dommerforeningen.dk/dommerforeningen/hoeringssvar/2025/lov-om-supplerende-bestemmelser-til-europa-parlamentets-og-raadets-forordning-om-kunstig-intelligens-ai-loven/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No Danish rule expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning; the position rests on judicial independence and CEPEJ guidance rather than a domestic instrument.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "Denmark applies free evaluation of evidence; no rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Danske Advokater's guidance on buying and using AI covers confidentiality, IP and GDPR alongside the conduct rules; Advokatsamfundet's own commentary warns lawyers to be clear about which technology they use and how it affects confidentiality and conflicts.", "documents": [ "dk-danske-advokater-ai-guides" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Danske Advokater — two new AI guides (17 Dec 2024)", "url": "https://www.danskeadvokater.dk/nyheder/to-nye-ai-vejledninger-til-advokatbranchen" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "EU AI Act Art. 4 AI literacy duty applies directly to Danish firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025; the revised advokatetiske regler (in force 1 July 2025) require professional diligence but do not name AI.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "dk-danske-advokater-ai-guides" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — rules for lawyers", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.dk/regler-for-advokater/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Danske Advokater guidance addresses firm-level implementation controls before deploying AI; no binding supervision rule specific to AI-assisted work.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Danske Advokater — AI theme page", "url": "https://www.danskeadvokater.dk/for-medlemmer/temaer/kunstig-intelligens-ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Advokatsamfundet commentary states lawyers should always be able to explain to the client how AI was applied to the advice given; no binding consent or disclosure requirement.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokaten — ethical pitfalls when using AI", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.dk/nyheder-medier/tidligere-artikler/2024/advokaten-1/2024-advokaten-1-tema-kunstig-intelligens-overvej-de-advokatetiske-faldgruber-nar-du-bruger-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Danish rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "Denmark reserves court representation to lawyers but has no ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Danske Advokater (the trade body) published two AI guides on 17 Dec 2024: one on the AI Act's significance for law firms, one on considerations before buying and using AI (confidentiality, IP, GDPR, ESG, conduct rules). Advokatsamfundet has published commentary but no formal guidance.", "documents": [ "dk-danske-advokater-ai-guides" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Danske Advokater — two new AI guides", "url": "https://www.danskeadvokater.dk/nyheder/to-nye-ai-vejledninger-til-advokatbranchen" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "LOV nr 467/2025 § 2(4)–(5): Domstolsstyrelsen is market surveillance authority for courts' use of AI systems when the courts are not acting in their capacity as a court; where they are, the court itself decides, subject to appeal to a higher court within four weeks. No published deployment policy or tool inventory found.", "documents": [ "dk-lov-467-2025-ai-supplementary-provisions" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Retsinformation — LOV nr 467 af 14/05/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/api/pdf/249582" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Datatilsynet maintains an AI guidance hub and published 'Offentlige myndigheders brug af kunstig intelligens — Inden I går i gang' for public bodies; supervision of generative-AI use was a stated 2025 focus area.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Datatilsynet — artificial intelligence", "url": "https://www.datatilsynet.dk/regler-og-vejledning/kunstig-intelligens" }, { "label": "Datatilsynet — public authorities' use of AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.datatilsynet.dk/Media/638321084132236143/Offentlige%20myndigheders%20brug%20af%20kunstig%20intelligens%20-%20Inden%20I%20g%C3%A5r%20i%20gang.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The AI Act applies directly. LOV nr 467 of 14 May 2025 (in force 2 Aug 2025) names Digitaliseringsstyrelsen, Datatilsynet and Domstolsstyrelsen as national competent authorities for the Art. 5 prohibitions and sets inspection and fining powers. A broader AI-loven bill (L 111) was introduced on 18 Feb 2026; adoption not confirmed.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744", "dk-lov-467-2025-ai-supplementary-provisions" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Retsinformation — LOV nr 467 af 14/05/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/api/pdf/249582" }, { "label": "Retsinformation — 2025/1 LSF 111, AI-loven bill (PDF)", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/api/pdf/255520" }, { "label": "Digitaliseringsstyrelsen — rules of the AI Regulation", "url": "https://digst.dk/tilsyn/ai-forordningen/reglerne-i-ai-forordningen/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Advokatnævnet fined a lawyer DKK 10,000 payable to the Treasury in December 2025 (reported 19 May 2026) for citing two non-existent judgments in an email; the errors spanned year, page, court and content. The ruling makes no finding about AI and the lawyer denied using it, but it was logged as Denmark's first Hallucination Cases entry.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Djøfbladet — Danish lawyer fined for invented judgments", "url": "https://www.djoefbladet.dk/artikler/2026/05/dansk-advokat-boede-opdigtede-domme" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "The Danish Institute of Arbitration had published no AI rule or guideline as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "No Danish CLE rule naming AI; AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty applies to firms as deployers. Danske Advokater runs a voluntary AI network and training for members.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Danske Advokater — AI network", "url": "https://www.danskeadvokater.dk/for-medlemmer/netvaerk-og-udvalg/danske-advokaters-ai-netvaerk" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Danske Advokater's second December 2024 guide is a procurement checklist for firms buying AI, covering confidentiality, IP rights, GDPR, ESG and the conduct rules.", "documents": [ "dk-danske-advokater-ai-guides" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Danske Advokater — two new AI guides", "url": "https://www.danskeadvokater.dk/nyheder/to-nye-ai-vejledninger-til-advokatbranchen" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Danske Advokater — two new AI guides for the legal profession (17 Dec 2024)", "url": "https://www.danskeadvokater.dk/nyheder/to-nye-ai-vejledninger-til-advokatbranchen" }, { "label": "Digitaliseringsstyrelsen — AI Regulation supervision", "url": "https://digst.dk/tilsyn/ai-forordningen/reglerne-i-ai-forordningen/" }, { "label": "Retsinformation — LOV nr 467 af 14/05/2025, supplementary provisions to the AI Regulation (PDF)", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/api/pdf/249582" }, { "label": "Retsinformation — 2025/1 LSF 111 (AI-loven bill, 18 Feb 2026) (PDF)", "url": "https://www.retsinformation.dk/api/pdf/255520" }, { "label": "Datatilsynet — artificial intelligence guidance", "url": "https://www.datatilsynet.dk/regler-og-vejledning/kunstig-intelligens" }, { "label": "Djøfbladet — Advokatnævnet fine for invented judgments (May 2026)", "url": "https://www.djoefbladet.dk/artikler/2026/05/dansk-advokat-boede-opdigtede-domme" } ] }, { "id": "do", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/do", "name": "Dominican Republic", "iso": "DO", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 the Dominican Republic has no rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. The Supreme Court opened a focal group on AI in October 2025, the judiciary coordinates the Ibero-American AI-assisted drafting project, and an EU programme is helping draft an AI bill, but nothing has been adopted.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Judicial Branch (Poder Judicial)", "url": "https://poderjudicial.gob.do/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice (Suprema Corte de Justicia)", "url": "https://poderjudicial.gob.do/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Dominican Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados)", "url": "https://www.card.org.do/", "role": "bar" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "The Supreme Court began a focal-group study of AI tools in October 2025 stressing ethics and fundamental rights, but no policy has been adopted. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Diario Libre on the Supreme Court study", "url": "https://www.diariolibre.com/actualidad/justicia/2025/10/28/la-scj-estudia-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-sistema-de-justicia/3293345" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule; the EU-assisted legislative review of June 2026 targets deepfakes as a criminal-law matter. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Dominican Bar Association found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The judiciary runs the LEIA procedural-guidance assistant through the national judicial school and coordinates the Ibero-American AI-assisted drafting project with human supervision. Its responsible AI use page could not be opened, so the existence of a formal policy is unconfirmed.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Poder Judicial: responsible AI use", "url": "https://poderjudicial.gob.do/poder-judicial-eficientiza-los-procesos-judiciales-con-el-uso-responsable-de-la-ia/" }, { "label": "Acento on the Ibero-American project", "url": "https://acento.com.do/actualidad/poder-judicial-dominicano-presenta-proyecto-sobre-inteligencia-artificial-en-la-justicia-9699852.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Ley 172-13 applies generally; no AI-specific guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI statute or filed bill. An EU mission in June 2026 is assisting the three branches to prepare a draft bill covering AI and AI-enabled crime. No bill was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Poder Judicial: EU mission on the AI framework", "url": "https://poderjudicial.gob.do/poder-judicial-recibe-mision-de-la-union-europea-para-actualizacion-del-marco-normativo-sobre-inteligencia-artificial-y-delitos-tecnologicos/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Diario Libre: the Supreme Court studies AI", "url": "https://www.diariolibre.com/actualidad/justicia/2025/10/28/la-scj-estudia-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-sistema-de-justicia/3293345" }, { "label": "Hoy: judiciary and EU on AI legislation", "url": "https://hoy.com.do/vivir/judicial-ue-colaboran-nueva-legislacion-sobre-inteligencia-artificial-rd_1092216.html" }, { "label": "Acento: Ibero-American AI drafting project", "url": "https://acento.com.do/actualidad/poder-judicial-dominicano-presenta-proyecto-sobre-inteligencia-artificial-en-la-justicia-9699852.html" } ] }, { "id": "ec", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ec", "name": "Ecuador", "iso": "EC", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Ecuador is mid-transition: the Judicial Function's Ethics Committee approved a twenty-three-principle AI protocol on 16 June 2026 barring AI from deciding, prohibiting public tools for case data and requiring AI use to be declared, pending formal adoption; a July 2026 bill would write verification duties and sanctions into the judiciary code.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Judiciary Council (Consejo de la Judicatura)", "url": "https://www.funcionjudicial.gob.ec/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ethics Committee of the Judicial Function", "url": "https://www.funcionjudicial.gob.ec/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Assembly (Asamblea Nacional)", "url": "https://www.asambleanacional.gob.ec/", "role": "legislature" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Ethics Committee protocol, approved 16 June 2026 and awaiting a Judiciary Council resolution, requires every procedural document to declare when and how AI was used. It binds judicial actors such as judges, prosecutors, defenders and staff rather than private lawyers, and is not yet in force.", "documents": [ "ec-comite-etica-funcion-judicial-protocolo-ia-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "El Universo on the Ethics Committee protocol", "url": "https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/politica/funcion-judicial-de-ecuador-avanza-en-la-elaboracion-de-un-protocolo-para-el-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-nota/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "proposed", "note": "A bill to reform the Organic Code of the Judicial Function, presented on 13 July 2026, would bar judges from using AI information without verifying accuracy, relevance and currency, and bar lawyers from filing AI-generated content without verifying it where it could mislead. It is at an initial stage.", "documents": [ "ec-cofj-reform-bill-ai-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Infobae on the reform bill", "url": "https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2026/07/13/ecuador-busca-regular-el-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-la-justicia-con-un-proyecto-que-fija-limites-y-sanciones/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Ethics Committee protocol of 16 June 2026, drafted with the Judiciary Council, National Court, Prosecutor General and Public Defender, sets 23 principles, five common directives and actor-specific rules; judges may not motivate rulings with algorithms or assess credibility via AI. A formal resolution is pending.", "documents": [ "ec-comite-etica-funcion-judicial-protocolo-ia-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "El Universo on the Ethics Committee protocol", "url": "https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/politica/funcion-judicial-de-ecuador-avanza-en-la-elaboracion-de-un-protocolo-para-el-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-nota/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Protocol directive 1: no AI may issue, replace or determine judicial decisions, and judges cannot motivate rulings with algorithms. The July 2026 bill would make incorporating unverified AI content a serious disciplinary offence for judicial personnel. Neither is in force.", "documents": [ "ec-comite-etica-funcion-judicial-protocolo-ia-2026", "ec-cofj-reform-bill-ai-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "El Universo on the Ethics Committee protocol", "url": "https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/politica/funcion-judicial-de-ecuador-avanza-en-la-elaboracion-de-un-protocolo-para-el-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-nota/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule; the protocol bans AI translation or analysis of Kichwa and Shuar testimony, which is a procedural safeguard rather than an admissibility rule. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "ec-comite-etica-funcion-judicial-protocolo-ia-2026" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Protocol directive 2: public AI tools are prohibited for case data, only institutional tools may be used, and administrative staff may not enter personal data into unauthorised systems. It applies to judicial actors and is not yet in force.", "documents": [ "ec-comite-etica-funcion-judicial-protocolo-ia-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "El Universo on the Ethics Committee protocol", "url": "https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/politica/funcion-judicial-de-ecuador-avanza-en-la-elaboracion-de-un-protocolo-para-el-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-nota/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from provincial bar associations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The protocol confines judicial actors to institutional AI tools authorised by task type, and Ecuador also participates in the Ibero-American AI-assisted drafting project. No deployment policy is in force as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "ec-comite-etica-funcion-judicial-protocolo-ia-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "El Universo on the Ethics Committee protocol", "url": "https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/politica/funcion-judicial-de-ecuador-avanza-en-la-elaboracion-de-un-protocolo-para-el-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-nota/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The Organic Law on Personal Data Protection of 2021 applies; no AI-specific guidance from the data protection superintendence relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "AI-law proposals have circulated in the National Assembly but their status could not be verified against official records in this research window.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated content found as of 4 September 2026; the July 2026 bill would create a disciplinary offence.", "documents": [ "ec-cofj-reform-bill-ai-2026" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "El Universo: Ethics Committee AI protocol", "url": "https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/politica/funcion-judicial-de-ecuador-avanza-en-la-elaboracion-de-un-protocolo-para-el-uso-de-la-inteligencia-artificial-nota/" }, { "label": "Infobae: judiciary code reform bill on AI", "url": "https://www.infobae.com/america/america-latina/2026/07/13/ecuador-busca-regular-el-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-la-justicia-con-un-proyecto-que-fija-limites-y-sanciones/" } ] }, { "id": "eg", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/eg", "name": "Egypt", "iso": "EG", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Egypt has no court rule, judicial guidance or bar rule on AI in legal practice. Its National AI Strategy (2nd edition, January 2025) names the judiciary a target sector for the national Arabic large model, and the March 2026 National AI Governance Framework guide sets non-binding risk tiers that do not classify justice as high-risk.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Egyptian Bar Association [Niqabat al-Muhamin]", "url": "https://egyls.com/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.eg/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "National Council for Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Computing and Emerging Technologies / Egyptian Center for Responsible AI (ECRAI)", "url": "https://ai.gov.eg/", "role": "ai-authority" }, { "name": "Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT)", "url": "https://mcit.gov.eg/en", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA)", "url": "https://crcica.org/", "role": "arbitration" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Egyptian court rule or Court of Cassation direction requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No duty to verify AI-generated citations is imposed by any Egyptian court, the Ministry of Justice or the Egyptian Bar Association.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The National AI Strategy lists automated legal research and legal drafting assistance for judges as a target use case, but no judiciary rule or guidance on judges' use of AI exists.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Egypt National AI Strategy, 2nd edition (official PDF)", "url": "https://ai.gov.eg/SynchedFiles/en/Resources/AIstrategy%20English%2016-1-2025-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Egyptian Charter for Responsible AI states accountability must rest with natural or legal persons and that AI systems should not be given legal personality, but this is generic and not addressed to adjudication.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Egyptian Charter for Responsible AI 2023 v1.0 (official)", "url": "https://ai.gov.eg/SynchedFiles/en/Resources/Egyptian%20Charter%20For%20Responsible%20AI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The March 2026 governance framework guide places deepfakes in Tier 3 with transparency and watermarking expectations, but that is non-binding and is not an evidence rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Guide to Egypt's National AI Governance Framework (official)", "url": "https://ai.gov.eg/SynchedFiles/ar/Resources/Guide%20to%20Egypt%E2%80%99s%20National%20AI%20Governance%20Framework%2015-3-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Egyptian Bar Association has published no restriction on entering client data into AI tools.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Egypt's Advocacy Law and Bar rules do not name technology or AI competence.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Consumer AI legal services operate in Egypt without any published regulatory position from the Bar or the Ministry of Justice.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Egyptian Bar Association has run 'Generative AI for Lawyers' workshops with MCIT since October 2025 but has published no guidance, circular or charter on lawyers' AI use.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Egyptian Bar Association AI workshop announcements (official)", "url": "https://egyls.com/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Egypt's National AI Strategy (2nd edition, Jan 2025) names the judiciary a target sector for the national Arabic model, listing transcription of legal proceedings, case classification, litigation and claim assessment, virtual legal aid and drafting assistance for judges; Egyptian-accent speech recognition is already used to produce court minutes.", "documents": [ "eg-national-ai-strategy-2025-2030" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Egypt National AI Strategy, 2nd edition (official PDF)", "url": "https://ai.gov.eg/SynchedFiles/en/Resources/AIstrategy%20English%2016-1-2025-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "Personal Data Protection Law No. 151 of 2020 and its Executive Regulations (Minister of Communications Decree No. 816 of 2025, in force 2 Nov 2025, compliance by 1 Nov 2026) expressly address personal data used to train AI. Economy-wide, not legal-sector specific; official gazette text not opened.", "documents": [ "eg-national-ai-governance-framework-guide" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Clyde & Co, Egypt regulatory update on data privacy (secondary)", "url": "https://www.clydeco.com/en/insights/2026/01/egypt-regulatory-update-on-data-privacy" }, { "label": "Baker McKenzie, Egypt data protection update (secondary)", "url": "https://connectontech.bakermckenzie.com/egypt-important-data-protection-update/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Guide to Egypt's National AI Governance Framework (ed. 2.0, March 2026, NCAI/ECRAI) sets four risk tiers: prohibited; high-risk (critical infrastructure and biometrics, mandatory dual-check conformity); limited (chatbots, deepfakes); minimal. Full-text search found no reference to justice, courts or the judiciary. A dedicated AI law is reported in draft.", "documents": [ "eg-national-ai-governance-framework-guide", "eg-charter-responsible-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Guide to Egypt's National AI Governance Framework (official)", "url": "https://ai.gov.eg/SynchedFiles/ar/Resources/Guide%20to%20Egypt%E2%80%99s%20National%20AI%20Governance%20Framework%2015-3-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Egyptian decision sanctioning a lawyer for fabricated AI citations was located in Arabic or English sources.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. CRCICA's Arbitration Rules in force since January 2024 contain no AI-specific provision and CRCICA has issued no AI guidance note.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CRCICA Arbitration Rules (official)", "url": "https://crcica.org/rules/arbitration/cr_arb_rules_en.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory requirement as of 4 September 2026. Training is voluntary: Egyptian Bar Association / MCIT generative-AI workshops for lawyers since October 2025, and a UNESCO-Public Prosecution course for judges and prosecutors in March 2026, after which the Public Prosecution said it would fold AI training into national programmes.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "UNESCO, Strengthening AI competencies of Egyptian public prosecutors", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/strengthening-ai-competencies-egyptian-public-prosecutors" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence requirement was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Egypt National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, Second Edition (2025-2030)", "url": "https://ai.gov.eg/SynchedFiles/en/Resources/AIstrategy%20English%2016-1-2025-1.pdf" }, { "label": "Guide to Egypt's National AI Governance Framework, Edition 2.0 (March 2026)", "url": "https://ai.gov.eg/SynchedFiles/ar/Resources/Guide%20to%20Egypt%E2%80%99s%20National%20AI%20Governance%20Framework%2015-3-2026.pdf" }, { "label": "Egyptian Charter for Responsible AI 2023 v1.0", "url": "https://ai.gov.eg/SynchedFiles/en/Resources/Egyptian%20Charter%20For%20Responsible%20AI.pdf" }, { "label": "Egyptian Bar Association — generative AI workshops for lawyers", "url": "https://egyls.com/" }, { "label": "UNESCO — Strengthening AI competencies of Egyptian public prosecutors (March 2026)", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/strengthening-ai-competencies-egyptian-public-prosecutors" }, { "label": "MCIT — Egyptian Charter for Responsible AI press release", "url": "https://mcit.gov.eg/en/Media_Center/Press_Room/Press_Releases/66939" } ] }, { "id": "sv", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/sv", "name": "El Salvador", "iso": "SV", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 El Salvador has no verified AI rule for legal practice. The courts and legislature show digital-modernization activity, but searches found no AI filing disclosure rule, judicial-use guidance, bar ethics opinion, legal-AI sanction, arbitration rule or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice", "url": "https://www.csj.gob.sv/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Legislative Assembly", "url": "https://www.asamblea.gob.sv/", "role": "legislature" }, { "name": "Innovation Secretariat", "role": "digital-government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "The Supreme Court reports electronic signature and document-management modernization, but no court AI deployment policy was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador", "url": "https://www.csj.gob.sv/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "A personal data protection act is reported, but no AI-specific data-protection authority guidance for legal services was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: El Salvador", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=SV" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador", "url": "https://www.csj.gob.sv/" }, { "label": "Legislative Assembly of El Salvador", "url": "https://www.asamblea.gob.sv/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: El Salvador", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=SV" } ] }, { "id": "ee", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ee", "name": "Estonia", "iso": "EE", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Estonia's profession-facing layer is the Estonian Bar Association's 'Tehisaru juhend advokaatidele' (AI guide for advocates), published 3 December 2024 by its intellectual property and IT law commission. The Data Protection Inspectorate runs a standing AI guidance section. The EU AI Act applies directly; no Estonian court rule or judicial AI policy was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Estonian Bar Association [Eesti Advokatuur]", "url": "https://advokatuur.ee/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Estonia [Riigikohus]", "url": "https://www.riigikohus.ee/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Estonian courts portal [Kohus.ee]", "url": "https://www.kohus.ee/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Data Protection Inspectorate [Andmekaitse Inspektsioon, AKI]", "url": "https://www.aki.ee/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs [Justiits- ja Digiministeerium]", "url": "https://www.just.ee/", "role": "regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Estonian 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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kohus.ee", "url": "https://www.kohus.ee/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Bar's AI guide requires advocates to evaluate AI output critically, verify its accuracy and correct errors, on the principle that 'the attorney always provides legal services, not artificial intelligence'. Advocates must keep their expertise and independent judgment rather than let AI displace critical thinking. Non-binding.", "documents": [ "ee-advokatuur-tehisaru-juhend", "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Eesti Advokatuur — AI guide for advocates (3 Dec 2024)", "url": "https://advokatuur.ee/en/media/news/tehisaru-juhend-advokaatidele-muutuva-maailma-uued-voimalused-kasikaes-vastutustundliku-lahenemisega" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "Neither Riigikohus nor the kohus.ee courts portal publishes guidance for judges or court staff on generative AI as of 4 September 2026. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Estonia as a Council of Europe state but is non-binding.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Riigikohus", "url": "https://www.riigikohus.ee/et" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No Estonian instrument expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning. Reports of an Estonian 'robot judge' have never corresponded to any adopted rule or deployment. No rule found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Bar's AI guide states that sensitive client information may be entered only into systems whose security has been verified, and warns against free public AI services, which 'may use entered information for product development or share it unexpectedly'.", "documents": [ "ee-advokatuur-tehisaru-juhend" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Eesti Advokatuur — AI guide for advocates", "url": "https://advokatuur.ee/en/media/news/tehisaru-juhend-advokaatidele-muutuva-maailma-uued-voimalused-kasikaes-vastutustundliku-lahenemisega" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "AI Act Art. 4 AI-literacy duty applies directly to Estonian firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025. The Bar's AI guide reinforces it, requiring advocates to maintain professional expertise and independent judgment rather than allowing AI to substitute for professional skill.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "ee-advokatuur-tehisaru-juhend" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Bar's guide is addressed to advocates and law-office staff, placing responsibility for responsible AI use across the office on the advocate. No binding supervision rule specific to AI-assisted work found.", "documents": [ "ee-advokatuur-tehisaru-juhend" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Eesti Advokatuur — AI guide for advocates", "url": "https://advokatuur.ee/en/media/news/tehisaru-juhend-advokaatidele-muutuva-maailma-uued-voimalused-kasikaes-vastutustundliku-lahenemisega" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Bar's guide asserts that the advocate, not AI, provides the legal service, but whether it imposes any duty to tell clients about AI use could not be determined — the guide document itself is not published on the open web.", "documents": [ "ee-advokatuur-tehisaru-juhend" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No Estonian rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work was located; the Bar's guide text was not publicly retrievable to check whether it addresses fees.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "Court representation is largely reserved to advocates under the Bar Association Act, but no ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Eesti Advokatuur published 'Tehisaru juhend advokaatidele' on 3 December 2024, prepared by its intellectual property and IT law commission, to help advocates and office staff use AI effectively and responsibly. The guide itself is distributed to members; only the announcement is public.", "documents": [ "ee-advokatuur-tehisaru-juhend" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Eesti Advokatuur — announcement (3 Dec 2024)", "url": "https://advokatuur.ee/en/media/news/tehisaru-juhend-advokaatidele-muutuva-maailma-uued-voimalused-kasikaes-vastutustundliku-lahenemisega" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No published policy on Estonian courts' institutional AI deployment was located; the Ministry of Justice and Digital Affairs runs national AI programmes (test environment, privacy-protection support) but none is court-specific.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Justiits- ja Digiministeerium — Tehisaru", "url": "https://www.just.ee/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Andmekaitse Inspektsioon maintains a standing 'Tehisaru' section covering AI and data protection, the AI Regulation, personal-data protection, awareness and human rights, and a page for AI adopters, plus 2026 opinions on general-purpose AI and AI documentation software in healthcare.", "documents": [ "ee-aki-tehisaru-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "AKI — Tehisaru ja andmekaitse", "url": "https://www.aki.ee/tehisaru/tehisaru-ja-andmekaitse/tehisintellekti-maarus" }, { "label": "AKI — Tehisaru kasutusele võtjale", "url": "https://www.aki.ee/tehisaru/tehisaru-ja-andmekaitse/tehisaru-kasutusele-votjale" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "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. AKI explains the Regulation and tracks the Digital and AI Omnibus timetable. National supervisory designations not verified.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744", "ee-aki-tehisaru-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "AKI — Tehisintellekti määrus", "url": "https://www.aki.ee/tehisaru/tehisaru-ja-andmekaitse/tehisintellekti-maarus" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No reported Estonian court sanction or bar disciplinary decision over hallucinated citations was located, but Estonian case databases could not be searched during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Whether the Arbitration Court of the Estonian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has issued an AI guideline could not be checked during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "No Estonian CLE rule names AI. The AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty applies to firms as deployers from 2 Feb 2025; the Bar's December 2024 guide is the profession's non-mandatory training material.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "ee-advokatuur-tehisaru-juhend" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Bar's guide requires advocates to verify a system's security before entering sensitive client data and to avoid free public AI services whose terms allow inputs to be reused. No sector procurement rule exists.", "documents": [ "ee-advokatuur-tehisaru-juhend" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Eesti Advokatuur — AI guide for advocates", "url": "https://advokatuur.ee/en/media/news/tehisaru-juhend-advokaatidele-muutuva-maailma-uued-voimalused-kasikaes-vastutustundliku-lahenemisega" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Eesti Advokatuur — Tehisaru juhend advokaatidele (3 Dec 2024)", "url": "https://advokatuur.ee/en/media/news/tehisaru-juhend-advokaatidele-muutuva-maailma-uued-voimalused-kasikaes-vastutustundliku-lahenemisega" }, { "label": "Andmekaitse Inspektsioon — Tehisintellekti määrus", "url": "https://www.aki.ee/tehisaru/tehisaru-ja-andmekaitse/tehisintellekti-maarus" }, { "label": "Andmekaitse Inspektsioon — Tehisaru kasutusele võtjale", "url": "https://www.aki.ee/tehisaru/tehisaru-ja-andmekaitse/tehisaru-kasutusele-votjale" }, { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "Riigikohus (Supreme Court of Estonia)", "url": "https://www.riigikohus.ee/et" } ] }, { "id": "et", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/et", "name": "Ethiopia", "iso": "ET", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Ethiopia has no court or bar rule on AI use in legal practice located. The 2024 National AI Policy provides a cross-sector roadmap under Ethiopia’s AI governance institutions, while the Personal Data Protection Proclamation is general. No judicial protocol, sanction case or mandatory AI training for lawyers was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Federal Supreme Court of Ethiopia", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ethiopian Artificial Intelligence Institute", "role": "ai-authority" }, { "name": "Ethiopian Federal Advocates Association", "role": "bar" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The National AI Policy links data governance to the Personal Data Protection Proclamation, but no authority guidance applying data-protection rules specifically to AI in legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LawEthiopia — Ethiopia’s AI policy", "url": "https://www.lawethiopia.com/political-economy/policy-documents/sectoral-policies/ai-policy.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Ethiopia’s National AI Policy was approved in 2024 and sets cross-sector objectives for sectoral integration, data governance/privacy, human capital, infrastructure and ethical accountability. It is a policy, not an enacted AI statute or legal-services rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LawEthiopia — Ethiopia’s AI policy", "url": "https://www.lawethiopia.com/political-economy/policy-documents/sectoral-policies/ai-policy.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "LawEthiopia — Ethiopia’s AI policy", "url": "https://www.lawethiopia.com/political-economy/policy-documents/sectoral-policies/ai-policy.html" }, { "label": "DiploFoundation — Ethiopian council of ministers approves AI policy", "url": "https://www.diplomacy.edu/updates/ethiopian-council-of-ministers-approves-ai-policy/" } ] }, { "id": "eu", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/eu", "name": "European Union", "iso": "EU", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "supranational", "summary": "As of September 2026 the EU regulates legal AI horizontally rather than professionally. The AI Act (Reg. 2024/1689, amended by the Digital Omnibus Reg. 2026/1744) classifies justice-administration AI as high-risk from 2 Dec 2027; Article 50 transparency applied 2 Aug 2026. The CCBE guide and CEPEJ guidelines supply the profession-facing layer; conduct rules stay national.", "regulators": [ { "name": "European Commission, DG CONNECT / European AI Office", "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/ai-office", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "European Data Protection Board (EDPB)", "url": "https://www.edpb.europa.eu/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE)", "url": "https://www.ccbe.eu/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)", "url": "https://curia.europa.eu/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), Council of Europe", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej", "role": "judiciary" } ], "jurisdiction": "eu", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No EU-level rule requires disclosure or certification of AI use in court filings; the CJEU Rules of Procedure are silent and filing rules remain national. AI Act Art. 50(4) deployer disclosure targets deepfakes and public-interest text, not pleadings.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CCBE Guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers (2 Oct 2025) makes lawyers fully responsible for AI-assisted output and requires checking for invented citations. CEPEJ(2025)18Final requires judicial users to verify output before reliance. Neither is binding.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "eu-cjeu-ai-ethics-charter" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CCBE guide (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20251002_CCBE-guide-on-the-use-of-the-use-of-generative-AI-for-lawyers.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CEPEJ Guidelines CEPEJ(2025)18Final (19 Dec 2025) govern generative AI use by courts and tribunals across 46 Council of Europe states, including all EU members. The CJEU adopted an AI Strategy (19 June 2023) and an AI Ethics Charter (26 Jan 2026) for its own judicial-support tools.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "eu-cjeu-ai-ethics-charter" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CEPEJ(2025)18Final (PDF)", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2025-18final-en-draft-guidelines-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-for/48802a4ad1" }, { "label": "CJEU — Artificial Intelligence", "url": "https://curia.europa.eu/site/jcms/p1_1000081791/en/artificial-intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CEPEJ(2025)18Final: a human judge must always decide and AI output is never binding. The CJEU AI Ethics Charter (26 Jan 2026) states AI systems 'shall not be entrusted with decision-making responsibilities' and that Judges and Advocates General remain in full control. No EU statute bans AI-drafted judgments.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "eu-cjeu-ai-ethics-charter" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CEPEJ(2025)18Final (PDF)", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2025-18final-en-draft-guidelines-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-for/48802a4ad1" }, { "label": "CJEU AI Ethics Charter (PDF)", "url": "https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-03/ethics_charter_ai_-_en.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "Evidence rules are national or Member-State procedural law; the EU has no rule on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence. AI Act Art. 50 marking/watermarking duties may assist authentication indirectly but are not evidence rules.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CCBE guide requires care over professional secrecy, what is entered into tools and where data is processed. EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (17 Dec 2024) governs the GDPR side of AI model development and deployment. Secrecy itself is regulated nationally.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "eu-edpb-opinion-28-2024-ai-models", "eu-cjeu-ai-ethics-charter" ], "sources": [ { "label": "EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-12/edpb_opinion_202428_ai-models_en.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "AI Act Art. 4 (applicable since 2 Feb 2025) obliges providers and deployers — including law firms deploying AI in the EU — to ensure sufficient AI literacy among staff. Commission Q&A (May 2025) explains scope; no prescribed format or certification.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-ai-literacy-qa" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "Commission AI literacy Q&A", "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/ai-literacy-questions-answers" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CCBE guide recommends firm-level policies, training and human oversight of AI-assisted work; AI Act Art. 14 human-oversight duties bite only on high-risk systems (deferred to 2 Dec 2027 for Annex III). No EU supervision rule for law firms.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No EU duty to tell clients about AI use in legal work. AI Act Art. 50(1) requires informing people they are interacting with an AI system (relevant to client-facing chatbots) and Art. 50(4) covers public-interest AI text; client-consent rules remain national.", "documents": [ "eu-commission-article-50-transparency-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Commission Article 50 transparency guidelines (C(2026) 5054 final)", "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-transparency-obligations-providers-and-deployers-ai-systems" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "Lawyers' fees are regulated at Member-State level; no EU rule or CCBE position on billing for AI-assisted work as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "Reservation of legal activities is a Member-State competence; no EU rule or CJEU ruling on AI legal-services products and unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CCBE Guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers (2 Oct 2025) is the pan-European bar guidance: permissive with cautions on limitations, verification, professional secrecy and the AI Act's literacy and transparency duties.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CCBE guide (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20251002_CCBE-guide-on-the-use-of-the-use-of-generative-AI-for-lawyers.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The CJEU adopted an AI Strategy on 19 June 2023, created an AI Management Board, and adopted an AI Ethics Charter on 26 January 2026 covering AI tools that assist its judicial functions: purpose documentation, labelling of unverified AI output shared beyond the requester, confidentiality and human oversight.", "documents": [ "eu-cjeu-ai-ethics-charter" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CJEU — Artificial Intelligence", "url": "https://curia.europa.eu/site/jcms/p1_1000081791/en/artificial-intelligence" }, { "label": "CJEU AI Ethics Charter (PDF)", "url": "https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-03/ethics_charter_ai_-_en.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (17 Dec 2024) addresses AI-model anonymity, legitimate interest in development and deployment, and consequences of unlawful training data — supervisory authorities may order erasure or retraining. Applies to legal-sector deployers of AI.", "documents": [ "eu-edpb-opinion-28-2024-ai-models" ], "sources": [ { "label": "EDPB Opinion 28/2024 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-12/edpb_opinion_202428_ai-models_en.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "AI Act Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI intended to assist judicial authorities in researching/interpreting facts and law, or in applying law, as high-risk. Reg. (EU) 2026/1744 defers those obligations to 2 Dec 2027; draft Art. 6 classification guidelines issued 19 May 2026.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744", "eu-commission-draft-guidelines-high-risk-classification" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2026/1744", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj/eng" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No EU-level sanctions framework for AI misuse in litigation; sanctions for hallucinated citations are imposed by national courts and bars. AI Act penalties (Arts. 99–101) target providers/deployers of AI systems, not litigation conduct.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No EU instrument on AI in arbitration or ADR. The relevant instruments in Europe are institutional (e.g. CIArb 2023 guideline) rather than EU law.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "AI Act Art. 4 imposes an outcome-based AI literacy duty on deployers from 2 Feb 2025, but prescribes no course, hours or certification; the Commission Q&A confirms organisations choose the approach and should document it. No EU CLE mandate for lawyers.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-ai-literacy-qa" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Commission AI literacy Q&A", "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/ai-literacy-questions-answers" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CCBE guide asks lawyers to check tool terms, data location and training-data use before adoption. AI Act value-chain duties (Art. 25, GPAI documentation under the Code of Practice) shape what vendors must disclose, but there is no legal-sector procurement rule.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "eu-gpai-code-of-practice", "eu-commission-guidelines-gpai-providers", "eu-edpb-opinion-28-2024-ai-models" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Commission GPAI provider guidelines", "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/guidelines-gpai-providers" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 (Digital Omnibus on AI)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj/eng" }, { "label": "Commission — Article 50 transparency guidelines", "url": "https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/guidelines-transparency-obligations-providers-and-deployers-ai-systems" }, { "label": "CCBE — Guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers", "url": "https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20251002_CCBE-guide-on-the-use-of-the-use-of-generative-AI-for-lawyers.pdf" }, { "label": "CEPEJ(2025)18Final — generative AI in courts", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2025-18final-en-draft-guidelines-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-for/48802a4ad1" }, { "label": "EDPB Opinion 28/2024 on AI models", "url": "https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024-12/edpb_opinion_202428_ai-models_en.pdf" }, { "label": "CJEU — Artificial Intelligence", "url": "https://curia.europa.eu/site/jcms/p1_1000081791/en/artificial-intelligence" } ] }, { "id": "fi", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/fi", "name": "Finland", "iso": "FI", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Finland regulates legal AI through binding Bar information-security rules plus directly applicable EU law. Guideline B 05.1, in force 1 January 2024, binds advocates to enterprise-grade software and vetted processors; the Bar's Data Security Manual B 05.2 gained a dedicated AI annex, substantially updated on 13 November 2025. No court rule on AI exists.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Finnish Bar Association [Suomen Asianajajaliitto / Suomen Asianajajat]", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supervisory Board of the Bar [Valvontalautakunta]", "url": "https://valvontalautakunta.fi/", "role": "disciplinary" }, { "name": "National Courts Administration [Tuomioistuinvirasto]", "url": "https://tuomioistuinvirasto.fi/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Office of the Data Protection Ombudsman [Tietosuojavaltuutetun toimisto]", "url": "https://tietosuoja.fi/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Finnish court rule or practice direction requires parties to disclose or certify AI use in filings; the Code of Judicial Procedure [oikeudenkäymiskaari] is silent and Tuomioistuinvirasto publishes no party-facing AI direction as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tuomioistuinvirasto", "url": "https://tuomioistuinvirasto.fi/fi/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Data Security Manual B 05.2, Annex 5 point 2: whether advice rests wholly or partly on AI output, the advocate is personally liable; tools produce hard-to-spot errors and 'fabricated references' [sepitettyjä viittauksia], so the advocate must always verify correctness before use. Recommendatory in character.", "documents": [ "fi-bar-tietoturvaopas-b052", "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Suomen Asianajajat — B 05.2 Tietoturvaopas (PDF, in force 1 Dec 2025)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/B-05.2-Tietoturvaopas-hallitus-23.11.2018-paiv.-12.12.2019-24.9.2021-14.12.2023-19.4.2024-ja-13.11.2025-voimassa-1.12.2025-lukien.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No published Tuomioistuinvirasto or Ministry of Justice guidance on judges' and court staff use of generative AI could be located; the agency's site carries no AI section and ministry pages were unreachable during research. Position not determined.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tuomioistuinvirasto", "url": "https://tuomioistuinvirasto.fi/fi/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No domestic instrument barring AI from adjudicative reasoning was located. Judicial independence under the Constitution and CEPEJ(2025)18Final supply the position in practice, but no Finnish rule was verified.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Finland applies free evaluation of evidence [vapaa todistusharkinta, OK ch. 17]. No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "Guideline B 05.1 point 6 (binding, in force 1 Jan 2024): software and services used in practice must be intended for business use; others only with client consent. B 05.2 Annex 5 point 4 applies this to AI — tools may be used only if privileged material is not used, stored or shared contrary to secrecy.", "documents": [ "fi-bar-tietoturvaohje-b051", "fi-bar-tietoturvaopas-b052" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Suomen Asianajajat — B 05.1 Tietoturvaohje (PDF)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/B-05.1-Tietoturvaohje-24.1.2019-muut.-16.1.2020-ja-9.6.2023-voimassa-1.1.2024-alkaen.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "AI Act Art. 4 AI-literacy duty applies directly to Finnish firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025. B 05.1 point 1 separately binds advocates to keep their own and staff information-security competence sufficiently high through planned training, evidenced on request. B 05.2 Annex 5 point 6 sets out the literacy content.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "fi-bar-tietoturvaohje-b051", "fi-bar-tietoturvaopas-b052" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "B 05.1 Tietoturvaohje (PDF)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/B-05.1-Tietoturvaohje-24.1.2019-muut.-16.1.2020-ja-9.6.2023-voimassa-1.1.2024-alkaen.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "B 05.2 Annex 5 point 7 requires access rights to be scoped so AI does not surface material beyond its intended audience, and point 9 requires logging and monitoring of AI use, assigned to persons with sufficient competence, because models drift and fabricate.", "documents": [ "fi-bar-tietoturvaopas-b052" ], "sources": [ { "label": "B 05.2 Tietoturvaopas (PDF)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/B-05.2-Tietoturvaopas-hallitus-23.11.2018-paiv.-12.12.2019-24.9.2021-14.12.2023-19.4.2024-ja-13.11.2025-voimassa-1.12.2025-lukien.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "binding", "note": "B 05.1 point 6 permits non-business-grade services only with the client's consent, and B 05.2 Annex 5 point 1 applies that rule directly to AI applications. Annex 5 point 2 adds transparency of use and compliance with the AI Act's transparency duties. No general duty to announce AI use.", "documents": [ "fi-bar-tietoturvaohje-b051", "fi-bar-tietoturvaopas-b052" ], "sources": [ { "label": "B 05.1 Tietoturvaohje (PDF)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/B-05.1-Tietoturvaohje-24.1.2019-muut.-16.1.2020-ja-9.6.2023-voimassa-1.1.2024-alkaen.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No Finnish rule, guideline or Valvontalautakunta decision on billing for AI-assisted work was located; the Bar's fee guidance could not be searched during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Court representation is reserved to advocates, public legal aid attorneys and licensed trial counsel [laki luvan saaneista oikeudenkäyntiavustajista]. No ruling or regulator position on consumer AI legal products was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Annex 5 of Data Security Manual B 05.2, 'Tekoälyopas asianajajalle' (AI guide for the advocate), added 19 Apr 2024, updated by the board 13 Nov 2025, in force 1 Dec 2025. Twelve numbered requirements plus a Copilot deployment guide. Recommendatory, but a commentary on the binding B 05.1.", "documents": [ "fi-bar-tietoturvaopas-b052" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Suomen Asianajajat — regulations and guidelines index", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/asianajajalle/saantely/saadoksia-ja-ohjeita/" }, { "label": "B 05.2 Tietoturvaopas (PDF)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/B-05.2-Tietoturvaopas-hallitus-23.11.2018-paiv.-12.12.2019-24.9.2021-14.12.2023-19.4.2024-ja-13.11.2025-voimassa-1.12.2025-lukien.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No published policy on the Finnish courts' own AI deployment was located. Tuomioistuinvirasto's site lists no AI programme; the AIPA case-management programme documentation could not be checked during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tuomioistuinvirasto", "url": "https://tuomioistuinvirasto.fi/fi/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Data Protection Ombudsman's site (tietosuoja.fi) was unreachable throughout research, so the existence and scope of any Finnish DPA generative-AI guidance could not be confirmed. Treat as not yet researched.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "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. Finland's national supplementary act and designated market-surveillance authorities could not be verified.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2026/1744", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj/eng" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No reported Finnish court sanction or Valvontalautakunta decision over hallucinated citations was located, but case databases could not be searched during research. Position not determined as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Whether the Arbitration Institute of the Finland Chamber of Commerce (FAI) has issued an AI note or rule could not be checked during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "AI Act Art. 4 imposes the outcome-based literacy duty on firms as deployers. B 05.1 point 1 additionally requires documented security training, evidenced on request in the same way as continuing education under B 9. B 05.2 Annex 5 point 6 requires literacy to be maintained as systems change.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "fi-bar-tietoturvaohje-b051", "fi-bar-tietoturvaopas-b052" ], "sources": [ { "label": "B 05.1 Tietoturvaohje (PDF)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/B-05.1-Tietoturvaohje-24.1.2019-muut.-16.1.2020-ja-9.6.2023-voimassa-1.1.2024-alkaen.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "B 05.1 point 6 requires business-grade licences and point 14 requires supplier contracts to carry confidentiality, access-scoping and data-destruction terms. B 05.2 adds that where a cloud or AI service offers a version separating a customer's data from other users' data, that version must be adopted.", "documents": [ "fi-bar-tietoturvaohje-b051", "fi-bar-tietoturvaopas-b052" ], "sources": [ { "label": "B 05.1 Tietoturvaohje (PDF)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/B-05.1-Tietoturvaohje-24.1.2019-muut.-16.1.2020-ja-9.6.2023-voimassa-1.1.2024-alkaen.pdf" }, { "label": "B 05.2 Tietoturvaopas (PDF)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/B-05.2-Tietoturvaopas-hallitus-23.11.2018-paiv.-12.12.2019-24.9.2021-14.12.2023-19.4.2024-ja-13.11.2025-voimassa-1.12.2025-lukien.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Suomen Asianajajat — regulations and guidelines index", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/asianajajalle/saantely/saadoksia-ja-ohjeita/" }, { "label": "B 05.1 Tietoturvaohje (binding, in force 1 Jan 2024) (PDF)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/B-05.1-Tietoturvaohje-24.1.2019-muut.-16.1.2020-ja-9.6.2023-voimassa-1.1.2024-alkaen.pdf" }, { "label": "B 05.2 Tietoturvaopas incl. Annex 5 AI guide (in force 1 Dec 2025) (PDF)", "url": "https://asianajajat.fi/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/B-05.2-Tietoturvaopas-hallitus-23.11.2018-paiv.-12.12.2019-24.9.2021-14.12.2023-19.4.2024-ja-13.11.2025-voimassa-1.12.2025-lukien.pdf" }, { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "Tuomioistuinvirasto (National Courts Administration)", "url": "https://tuomioistuinvirasto.fi/fi/" } ] }, { "id": "fr", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/fr", "name": "France", "iso": "FR", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 France regulates legal AI through professional deontology and judicial charters rather than a court rule. The CNB adopted a deontological AI guide on 17 March 2026; the Conseil d'État's charter of 11 December 2025 binds every member of the administrative jurisdiction; article L. 111-13 COJ criminally bans profiling judges; administrative courts have begun censuring hallucinated citations.", "regulators": [ { "name": "National Bar Council (Conseil national des barreaux, CNB)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Council of State (Conseil d'État)", "url": "https://www.conseil-etat.fr/", "role": "judiciary (administrative)" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice (Ministère de la Justice)", "url": "https://www.justice.gouv.fr/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Data Protection Authority (Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés, CNIL)", "url": "https://www.cnil.fr/", "role": "data-protection / lead AI Act authority" }, { "name": "Consumer and Competition Directorate (DGCCRF)", "url": "https://www.economie.gouv.fr/dgccrf", "role": "ai-act market surveillance coordinator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, decree or practice direction requires parties or counsel to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. Administrative courts have criticised undisclosed AI use in submissions but imposed no disclosure obligation.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Two official texts impose it. The Conseil d'État charter (11 Dec 2025) requires personnel to 'assurer systématiquement une vérification humaine' and never to assume AI output is true or complete. The CNB deontological guide (17 Mar 2026) makes the lawyer keep 'la maîtrise intellectuelle' of the work. Administrative courts have applied the duty (TA Orléans, 29 Dec 2025).", "documents": [ "fr-conseil-etat-charte-ia-juridiction-administrative", "fr-cnb-guide-deontologie-ia", "fr-cnb-guide-pratique-ia-generative" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Conseil d'État — Charte d'utilisation de l'IA (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.conseil-etat.fr/Media/actualites/documents/2025/decembre-2025/charte-d-utilisation-de-l-intelligence-artificielle-au-sein-de-la-juridiction-administrative" }, { "label": "CNB — Le CNB adopte un guide sur la déontologie et l'IA (official)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/actualite/le-cnb-adopte-un-guide-sur-la-deontologie-et-l-intelligence-artificielle" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Conseil d'État charter of 11 Dec 2025 applies to every member, magistrate and staff member of the Conseil d'État, administrative courts of appeal, tribunaux administratifs, the CNDA and the Tribunal du stationnement payant. Seven principles; access to public chatbots is deliberately not blocked but is tightly conditioned. No equivalent charter for the ordre judiciaire yet — the Ministry of Justice says one is in preparation.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "fr-conseil-etat-charte-ia-juridiction-administrative", "fr-ministere-justice-rapport-ia-justice" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Conseil d'État — Charte (official)", "url": "https://www.conseil-etat.fr/qui-sommes-nous/deontologie/charte-d-utilisation-de-l-intelligence-artificielle-au-sein-de-la-juridiction-administrative" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "binding", "note": "Article 47 of the loi Informatique et Libertés (6 Jan 1978) forbids any judicial decision involving an assessment of a person's behaviour being founded on automated processing profiling that person. The Conseil d'État charter restates it: 'l'IA est un outil qui jamais ne décide' — AI may not interpret a rule, establish or assess facts, apply law to facts or propose an outcome. Separately, article L. 111-13 COJ (inserted by loi 2019-222, art. 33) makes it a criminal offence to reuse judges' and clerks' identity data to evaluate, analyse, compare or predict their professional practices — France's unique ban on judge analytics.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "fr-conseil-etat-charte-ia-juridiction-administrative" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Conseil d'État — Charte, principle 1 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.conseil-etat.fr/Media/actualites/documents/2025/decembre-2025/charte-d-utilisation-de-l-intelligence-artificielle-au-sein-de-la-juridiction-administrative" }, { "label": "Article L. 111-13 COJ (Légifrance, official)", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000038311162" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "case-law", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Village de la Justice — French AI hallucination decisions (secondary)", "url": "https://www.village-justice.com/articles/les-hallucinations-intelligence-artificielle-devant-les-juridictions-francaises,56337.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No French evidence rule or judicial guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CNB guide (17 Mar 2026) puts protection of the secret professionnel and GDPR compliance first. The Conseil d'État charter tells court personnel to give up using external AI where data security and confidentiality cannot be assured: giving information to a public chatbot 'équivaut à la publier sur internet'.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "fr-conseil-etat-charte-ia-juridiction-administrative", "fr-cnb-guide-deontologie-ia" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Conseil d'État — Charte, part 2 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.conseil-etat.fr/Media/actualites/documents/2025/decembre-2025/charte-d-utilisation-de-l-intelligence-artificielle-au-sein-de-la-juridiction-administrative" }, { "label": "CNB (official)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/actualite/le-cnb-adopte-un-guide-sur-la-deontologie-et-l-intelligence-artificielle" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Règlement intérieur national (art. 1.3) already requires compétence, dévouement, diligence et prudence; the CNB guide of 17 Mar 2026 applies competence, prudence and independence expressly to generative AI. No amendment to the RIN naming AI has been made.", "documents": [ "fr-cnb-guide-deontologie-ia", "fr-cnb-guide-pratique-ia-generative" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNB (official)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/actualite/le-cnb-adopte-un-guide-sur-la-deontologie-et-l-intelligence-artificielle" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No French rule on supervising AI-assisted work by staff or stagiaires. The CNB guide keeps final intellectual control and responsibility with the signing lawyer; the Conseil d'État charter tells staff they cannot 'se défausser sur l'IA' for content they adopt.", "documents": [ "fr-conseil-etat-charte-ia-juridiction-administrative" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Conseil d'État — Charte (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.conseil-etat.fr/Media/actualites/documents/2025/decembre-2025/charte-d-utilisation-de-l-intelligence-artificielle-au-sein-de-la-juridiction-administrative" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CNB guide of 17 Mar 2026 lists 'information [du client]' among the obligations engaged by generative AI. No French rule requires client consent before using AI on a matter (contrast the Dutch NOvA recommendation).", "documents": [ "fr-cnb-guide-deontologie-ia" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNB (official)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/actualite/le-cnb-adopte-un-guide-sur-la-deontologie-et-l-intelligence-artificielle" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The CNB guide of 17 Mar 2026 expressly covers the 'fixation équilibrée des honoraires' where AI reduces the time spent. This is one of the few European bar texts to address AI and billing. No binding rule.", "documents": [ "fr-cnb-guide-deontologie-ia" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNB (official)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/actualite/le-cnb-adopte-un-guide-sur-la-deontologie-et-l-intelligence-artificielle" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "binding", "note": "Articles 54 to 56 of loi no. 71-1130 of 31 Dec 1971 reserve paid legal consultation and drafting of acts to regulated professionals; they are technology-neutral and catch consumer AI legal products. No AI-specific French ruling found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Loi no. 71-1130 (Légifrance, official)", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000000508488" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Two CNB documents: the 'Guide pratique — Utilisation des systèmes d'intelligence artificielle générative' (1st ed., September 2024, 42 pp.) and the 'Guide pratique — La déontologie et l'intelligence artificielle' adopted at the assemblée générale of 17 March 2026. The CNB also republished the CCBE guide and runs a free Skilia/Lefebvre Dalloz AI course open until 2027.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "fr-cnb-guide-deontologie-ia", "fr-cnb-guide-pratique-ia-generative" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNB — Guide pratique IAG, Sept 2024 (official PDF)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/medias/cnb-guidepratique-utilisation-systemes-iag-2024-68f7b1d86e4570.98487114.pdf" }, { "label": "CNB — deontology guide announcement (official)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/actualite/le-cnb-adopte-un-guide-sur-la-deontologie-et-l-intelligence-artificielle" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Administrative jurisdiction: the Conseil d'État charter covers internal SIA and excludes high-risk systems, limiting internal projects to low-risk tasks (anonymisation, research support). Judicial order: the Ministry of Justice report 'L'IA au service de la justice' (Aug 2025) and a sovereign internal generative-AI assistant for magistrates and staff, with 'Mon Assistant Pénal' and 'Mon Assistant Civil' built with the Paris Court of Appeal.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "fr-conseil-etat-charte-ia-juridiction-administrative", "fr-ministere-justice-rapport-ia-justice" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ministère de la Justice — rapport IA au service de la justice (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.justice.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2025-08/rapport_ia_au_service_de_la_justice.pdf" }, { "label": "Ministère de la Justice — Développer l'IA pour la Justice (official)", "url": "https://www.justice.gouv.fr/actualites/actualite/developper-lintelligence-artificielle-ia-justice-entre-innovation-securisation" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CNIL has issued successive recommendations on applying the GDPR to AI system development and deployment, and renewed its partnership with the CNB on 17 July 2025 for three years specifically to support GDPR compliance of AI-equipped legal analysis tools in law firms.", "documents": [ "fr-cnb-guide-deontologie-ia" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNIL — Développement des systèmes d'IA : les recommandations spécifiques (official)", "url": "https://www.cnil.fr/fr/developpement-des-systemes-dia-les-recommandations-specifiques" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly; Annex III point 8(a) classifies AI used by or for judicial authorities to research/interpret facts and law as high-risk. France designated the CNIL as lead AI Act authority and the DGCCRF as market-surveillance coordinator and single point of contact, with about fifteen sectoral regulators (Arcom, ACPR, AMF, ANSM, HAS).", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-draft-guidelines-high-risk-classification", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNIL — IA (official)", "url": "https://www.cnil.fr/fr/intelligence-artificielle" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "At least eight French decisions since December 2025 have flagged generative-AI misuse. TA Orléans (29 Dec 2025, no. 2506461) censured a represented applicant's counsel for about fifteen wholly fabricated references; TJ Périgueux (pôle social, 18 Dec 2025) found fictitious case references in submissions. So far the courts have issued judicial warnings and rejected the submissions; no bar disciplinary sanction and no article 32-1 CPC amende civile has been reported.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Village de la Justice — analysis of the first French decisions (secondary)", "url": "https://www.village-justice.com/articles/les-hallucinations-intelligence-artificielle-devant-les-juridictions-francaises,56337.html" }, { "label": "Journal Spécial des Sociétés — l'IA et ses questions déontologiques dans les tribunaux français (secondary)", "url": "https://jss.fr/post/lintelligence-artificielle-et-ses-questions-deontologiques-arrivent-dans-les-tribunaux-francais" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No French statute or institutional rule. Paris-seated ICC arbitration is covered by the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals (1 Jun 2026, paras 76–80) and the ICC Commission task force on AI; the Ciarb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (Mar 2025, updated Sept 2025) is the usual reference text. See the international map.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ICC — Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals (official)", "url": "https://iccwbo.org/dispute-resolution/dispute-resolution-services/arbitration/rules-procedure/note-parties-and-arbitral-tribunals-conduct-arbitration/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "Article 4 of the EU AI Act has required deployers — including law firms and courts — to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy among staff since 2 Feb 2025. No French mandatory AI CLE: the CNB's Skilia/Lefebvre Dalloz course (10,000+ enrolments, open to 2027) is voluntary, and the Ministry of Justice offers non-compulsory modules to court staff.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-ai-literacy-qa", "fr-cnb-guide-pratique-ia-generative", "fr-ministere-justice-rapport-ia-justice" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNB — training and AI support for the profession (official)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/actualite/le-cnb-accompagne-toujours-plus-la-profession-dans-l-utilisation-de-l-ia-generative" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The CNB published a 'grille de sélection des outils d'IA' alongside the 2024 practical guide, scoring data sovereignty, security, functionality, ethical compliance and cost. The Ministry of Justice states a preference for solutions hosted on national territory.", "documents": [ "fr-cnb-guide-pratique-ia-generative", "fr-ministere-justice-rapport-ia-justice" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNB — AI guidance and tool-selection grid (official)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/actualite/le-cnb-accompagne-toujours-plus-la-profession-dans-l-utilisation-de-l-ia-generative" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Conseil d'État — Charte d'utilisation de l'IA au sein de la juridiction administrative (11 Dec 2025)", "url": "https://www.conseil-etat.fr/qui-sommes-nous/deontologie/charte-d-utilisation-de-l-intelligence-artificielle-au-sein-de-la-juridiction-administrative" }, { "label": "CNB — Guide pratique : la déontologie et l'intelligence artificielle (17 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/actualite/le-cnb-adopte-un-guide-sur-la-deontologie-et-l-intelligence-artificielle" }, { "label": "CNB — Guide pratique : utilisation des systèmes d'IA générative (Sept 2024, PDF)", "url": "https://cnb.avocat.fr/medias/cnb-guidepratique-utilisation-systemes-iag-2024-68f7b1d86e4570.98487114.pdf" }, { "label": "Article L. 111-13, Code de l'organisation judiciaire (ban on profiling judges)", "url": "https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000038311162" }, { "label": "Ministère de la Justice — L'IA au service de la justice: stratégie et solutions opérationnelles (Aug 2025, PDF)", "url": "https://www.justice.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2025-08/rapport_ia_au_service_de_la_justice.pdf" }, { "label": "CNIL — recommandations sur le développement des systèmes d'IA", "url": "https://www.cnil.fr/fr/developpement-des-systemes-dia-les-recommandations-specifiques" }, { "label": "Village de la Justice — first French decisions on AI hallucinations (Dec 2025 – 2026)", "url": "https://www.village-justice.com/articles/les-hallucinations-intelligence-artificielle-devant-les-juridictions-francaises,56337.html" } ] }, { "id": "ge", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ge", "name": "Georgia", "iso": "GE", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Georgia has no domestic AI law, national AI strategy, bar guidance, court rule or legal-practice AI case located. Its main AI-governance signal is signature of the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention; domestic implementation and any legal-sector guidance remain unverified.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Georgian Bar Association", "url": "https://gba.ge/en", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Georgia", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.ge/en", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Service", "url": "https://personaldata.ge/en", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Georgia Innovation and Technology Agency", "url": "https://gita.gov.ge/en", "role": "innovation" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The Personal Data Protection Service site was checked. No AI-specific data-protection guidance for legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Personal Data Protection Service of Georgia", "url": "https://personaldata.ge/en" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Georgia signed the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention on 5 September 2024. No domestic AI law, national AI strategy, regulator or implementation bill was located as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Council of Europe — global AI treaty opened for signature", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/council-of-europe-opens-first-ever-global-treaty-on-ai-for-signature" }, { "label": "Anurag Verma Worldwatch — AI regulation in Georgia", "url": "https://anuragverma.co/worldwatch/georgia/ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Anurag Verma Worldwatch — AI regulation in Georgia", "url": "https://anuragverma.co/worldwatch/georgia/ai" }, { "label": "Council of Europe — global AI treaty opened for signature", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/council-of-europe-opens-first-ever-global-treaty-on-ai-for-signature" }, { "label": "Georgia Innovation and Technology Agency", "url": "https://gita.gov.ge/en" }, { "label": "Personal Data Protection Service of Georgia", "url": "https://personaldata.ge/en" } ] }, { "id": "de", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/de", "name": "Germany", "iso": "DE", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Germany has no AI-specific court rule. The binding constraints come from professional statute, sections 43, 43a(2) and 43e BRAO, as applied by the BRAK's KI-Leitfaden of December 2024, which treats sending client secrets to a public LLM as impermissible. Four courts have censured hallucinated citations.", "regulators": [ { "name": "German Federal Bar (Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer, BRAK)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "German Bar Association (Deutscher Anwaltverein, DAV)", "url": "https://www.anwaltverein.de/", "role": "professional association" }, { "name": "Conference of Independent Data Protection Authorities (Datenschutzkonferenz, DSK)", "url": "https://www.datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Federal Ministry of Justice (Bundesministerium der Justiz)", "url": "https://www.bmj.de/", "role": "ministry" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No ZPO/StPO rule, court rule or reported standing order requires parties or counsel to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. Courts have criticised undeclared AI use but imposed no disclosure duty.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "BRAK KI-Leitfaden §2.1 grounds the duty in § 43 sentence 1 BRAO (gewissenhafte Berufsausübung) and the principle of personal performance (§ 613 BGB): AI may only support, never replace, and 'eine eigenverantwortliche Überprüfung und Endkontrolle der KI-Ergebnisse' is required in every case. KG Berlin (20 Nov 2025, 17 WF 144/25) held counsel must check whether citations come from a 'fantasising' AI.", "documents": [ "de-brak-ki-leitfaden" ], "sources": [ { "label": "BRAK — Hinweise zum Einsatz von künstlicher Intelligenz, Stand 12/2024 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/fileadmin/service/publikationen/Handlungshinweise/BRAK_Leitfaden_mit_Hinweisen_zum_KI-Einsatz_Stand_12_2024.pdf" }, { "label": "BRAK — KG ermahnt Anwältin wegen erfundener Urteile im Schriftsatz (official)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/newsroom/news/ki-halluzination-kg-ermahnt-anwaeltin-wegen-erfundener-urteile-im-schriftsatz/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No federal or Land-level published guidance for judges on generative AI was located before the search budget ran out; German court AI work sits mainly in Land pilot projects. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Germany as a Council of Europe member. Treat as not fully checked rather than confirmed empty.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No German rule barring AI from judgment drafting. The DSK Orientierungshilfe (6 May 2024) §1.6 states there must be 'keine automatisierte Letztentscheidung', reflecting Art. 22 GDPR; AI Act recital 61 and Annex III point 8(a) treat judicial-support AI as high-risk and reserve the final decision to the human judge.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "de-dsk-orientierungshilfe-ki-datenschutz" ], "sources": [ { "label": "DSK — Orientierungshilfe Künstliche Intelligenz und Datenschutz, 6 May 2024 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/oh/20240506_DSK_Orientierungshilfe_KI_und_Datenschutz.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented parties using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No German evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026; the free evaluation of evidence under § 286 ZPO applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "§ 43a(2) BRAO (confidentiality, criminally backed by § 203(1) no. 3 StGB) and § 43e BRAO (IT outsourcing) apply to AI providers. BRAK §3.2: for LLMs, transmitting client secrets is 'nach aktuellem Stand der Technik nicht erforderlich' and therefore not permitted; prompts should be abstract and documents anonymised; § 43e(4) requires comparable secrecy protection abroad, so EU/German-hosted providers are preferred.", "documents": [ "de-brak-ki-leitfaden", "de-dsk-orientierungshilfe-ki-datenschutz" ], "sources": [ { "label": "BRAK KI-Leitfaden §§3.1–3.3 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/fileadmin/service/publikationen/Handlungshinweise/BRAK_Leitfaden_mit_Hinweisen_zum_KI-Einsatz_Stand_12_2024.pdf" }, { "label": "§ 43e BRAO (gesetze-im-internet.de, official)", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/brao/__43e.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Article 4 of the EU AI Act has applied since 2 Feb 2025 and BRAK §5.1 confirms lawyers and Berufsausübungsgesellschaften are normally 'Betreiber' (deployers), so staff instructions and AI training are 'ein wesentlicher Bestandteil einer verantwortungsvollen Nutzung'; larger deployments may need a risk-management system with documentation and monitoring duties.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-ai-literacy-qa", "de-brak-ki-leitfaden" ], "sources": [ { "label": "BRAK KI-Leitfaden §5.1 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/fileadmin/service/publikationen/Handlungshinweise/BRAK_Leitfaden_mit_Hinweisen_zum_KI-Einsatz_Stand_12_2024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No express supervision rule for AI-assisted work. BRAK derives it from the Kanzleipflicht (§ 5 BORA) plus Art. 4 AI Act: firms should issue written internal instructions ('Handlungsanweisungen') and train staff. Heightened care applies where AI faces the client (chatbots, auto-responders, intake) — BRAK §2.2, citing OLG Hamm 'Scheidung Online'.", "documents": [ "de-brak-ki-leitfaden" ], "sources": [ { "label": "BRAK KI-Leitfaden §§2.2, 5.1 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/fileadmin/service/publikationen/Handlungshinweise/BRAK_Leitfaden_mit_Hinweisen_zum_KI-Einsatz_Stand_12_2024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Germany expressly rejects a duty: BRAK §4 states that neither the BRAO nor the BORA currently creates a professional obligation to tell clients that AI was used, though transparency and a contractual clause are recommended and duties may arise from contract law or the UWG. Art. 50(4) AI Act creates no disclosure duty where a lawyer reviews and takes editorial responsibility for the text.", "documents": [ "eu-commission-article-50-transparency-guidelines", "de-brak-ki-leitfaden" ], "sources": [ { "label": "BRAK KI-Leitfaden §§4 and 5.2 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/fileadmin/service/publikationen/Handlungshinweise/BRAK_Leitfaden_mit_Hinweisen_zum_KI-Einsatz_Stand_12_2024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, opinion or reported case on billing for AI-assisted work under the RVG found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz (RDG) reserves out-of-court legal services and is technology-neutral. The BGH has already drawn the line for automated legal products: Urt. v. 9 Sep 2021, I ZR 113/20 ('smartlaw') held a digital contract generator is not a Rechtsdienstleistung, while Urt. v. 27 Nov 2019, VIII ZR 285/18 ('wenigermiete.de') admitted registered legal-tech collection models. No AI-specific ruling since.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Rechtsdienstleistungsgesetz (gesetze-im-internet.de, official)", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/rdg/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "BRAK 'Hinweise zum Einsatz von künstlicher Intelligenz (KI)', Stand December 2024, published 9 Jan 2025 — eight sections covering § 43 BRAO verification, confidentiality and § 43e outsourcing, BRAO transparency, the AI Act, copyright/tax/insurance risks and European bar recommendations. BRAK also circulated the CCBE generative-AI guide and the CCBE technical guide adopted 27 Mar 2026.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "de-brak-ki-leitfaden" ], "sources": [ { "label": "BRAK — Künstliche Intelligenz in Anwaltskanzleien: BRAK veröffentlicht Leitfaden, 9 Jan 2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/newsroom/newsletter/nachrichten-aus-berlin/2025/ausgabe-1-2025-v-812025/kuenstliche-intelligenz-in-anwaltskanzleien-brak-veroeffentlicht-leitfaden/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not fully checked — the WebSearch budget was exhausted before German court AI deployment policies (Land-level pilots, Bund-Länder digitalisation programmes) could be verified against official sources.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The DSK's 'Künstliche Intelligenz und Datenschutz' Orientierungshilfe (v1.0, 6 May 2024) is the reference text: purpose definition, lawful basis, no automated final decision, closed vs open systems, transparency about training and prompt history, DPIA, work accounts for staff. BRAK §3.3 makes it the benchmark for law firms and flags that OpenAI is not on the EU-US Data Privacy Framework list.", "documents": [ "de-dsk-orientierungshilfe-ki-datenschutz" ], "sources": [ { "label": "DSK — Orientierungshilfe KI und Datenschutz (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/oh/20240506_DSK_Orientierungshilfe_KI_und_Datenschutz.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly (Art. 4 literacy since 2 Feb 2025; Art. 50 transparency from 2 Aug 2026). BRAK §5.3 concludes law-firm tools are normally not high-risk because Annex III point 8(a) targets judicial authorities, not the bar. BRAK called for a broad reading of the Art. 50 transparency duties (19 Mar 2025) and filed a Stellungnahme on the digital/AI omnibus (2 Mar 2026). German designation of national authorities was not verified in this pass.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-article-50-transparency-guidelines", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744", "de-brak-ki-leitfaden" ], "sources": [ { "label": "BRAK KI-Leitfaden §5 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/fileadmin/service/publikationen/Handlungshinweise/BRAK_Leitfaden_mit_Hinweisen_zum_KI-Einsatz_Stand_12_2024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Four reported decisions, all short of a formal sanction. AG Köln 2 Jul 2025 (312 F 130/25): every source from page 8 onwards invented; conduct impedes fact-finding and damages the standing of the profession (§ 43a(3) BRAO). OLG Celle 29 Apr 2025 (5 U 1/25): pleading built on invented OLG citations. LG Frankfurt 25 Sep 2025 (2-13 S 56/24): fabricated BGH quotation disregarded and the Streitwert set at EUR 3,000. KG Berlin 20 Nov 2025 (17 WF 144/25): formal admonition. No costs order or disciplinary measure reported.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "BRAK — KG ermahnt Anwältin (official)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/newsroom/news/ki-halluzination-kg-ermahnt-anwaeltin-wegen-erfundener-urteile-im-schriftsatz/" }, { "label": "Anwaltsblatt (DAV) — Halluzinationen in Schriftsätzen (secondary)", "url": "https://anwaltsblatt.anwaltverein.de/de/themen/kanzlei-praxis/halluzinationen-in-schriftsaetzen" }, { "label": "jura.cc — AG Köln 312 F 130/25 (secondary)", "url": "https://www.jura.cc/rechtstipps/ag-koeln-berufsrechtliche-bewertung-eines-ki-generierten-schriftsatzes/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no DIS (German Arbitration Institute) AI rule or note identified before the search budget was exhausted. The Ciarb and ICC texts in the international map are the practical reference.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "Article 4 of the EU AI Act obliges deployers, including law firms, to ensure sufficient AI literacy from 2 Feb 2025; BRAK §5.1 spells out what that means for a Kanzlei. The general § 43a(6) BRAO continuing-education duty is not AI-specific and there is no mandatory German AI CLE.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-ai-literacy-qa", "de-brak-ki-leitfaden" ], "sources": [ { "label": "BRAK KI-Leitfaden §5.1 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/fileadmin/service/publikationen/Handlungshinweise/BRAK_Leitfaden_mit_Hinweisen_zum_KI-Einsatz_Stand_12_2024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "§ 43e BRAO is the strictest vendor rule in this group: careful selection, a contract at least in text form containing the minimum content in § 43e(3) nos. 1–3 (confidentiality undertaking with warning of criminal consequences, purpose limitation), immediate termination if the safeguards fail, need-to-know access, and comparable secrecy protection for providers outside Germany (§ 43e(4)). Art. 28 GDPR applies alongside (§ 43e(8)).", "documents": [ "de-brak-ki-leitfaden", "de-dsk-orientierungshilfe-ki-datenschutz" ], "sources": [ { "label": "§ 43e BRAO (gesetze-im-internet.de, official)", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/brao/__43e.html" }, { "label": "BRAK KI-Leitfaden §3.2 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/fileadmin/service/publikationen/Handlungshinweise/BRAK_Leitfaden_mit_Hinweisen_zum_KI-Einsatz_Stand_12_2024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "BRAK — Hinweise zum Einsatz von künstlicher Intelligenz (KI), Stand Dezember 2024 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/fileadmin/service/publikationen/Handlungshinweise/BRAK_Leitfaden_mit_Hinweisen_zum_KI-Einsatz_Stand_12_2024.pdf" }, { "label": "BRAK newsroom — künstliche Intelligenz tag", "url": "https://www.brak.de/schlagwort/kuenstliche-intelligenz/" }, { "label": "BRAK — KG ermahnt Anwältin wegen erfundener Urteile im Schriftsatz (KG, 20 Nov 2025, 17 WF 144/25)", "url": "https://www.brak.de/newsroom/news/ki-halluzination-kg-ermahnt-anwaeltin-wegen-erfundener-urteile-im-schriftsatz/" }, { "label": "DSK — Orientierungshilfe Künstliche Intelligenz und Datenschutz, 6 May 2024 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/oh/20240506_DSK_Orientierungshilfe_KI_und_Datenschutz.pdf" }, { "label": "§ 43e BRAO — Inanspruchnahme von Dienstleistungen", "url": "https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/brao/__43e.html" }, { "label": "Anwaltsblatt (DAV) — Halluzinationen in Schriftsätzen", "url": "https://anwaltsblatt.anwaltverein.de/de/themen/kanzlei-praxis/halluzinationen-in-schriftsaetzen" } ] }, { "id": "gh", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/gh", "name": "Ghana", "iso": "GH", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Ghana has no AI rule, guidance or reported case in legal practice. The Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules 2020 are silent on AI, the Ghana Bar Association and General Legal Council have published nothing, and the Judicial Service has no AI policy on record.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Ghana Bar Association (GBA)", "url": "https://ghanabar.org/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Judicial Service of Ghana", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.gh/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Data Protection Commission", "url": "https://dataprotection.org.gh/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of Communication, Digital Technology and Innovations", "url": "https://moc.gov.gh/", "role": "government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Judicial Service policy or Chief Justice practice direction on AI was found. Checked judicial.gov.gh 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "The Legal Profession (Professional Conduct and Etiquette) Rules 2020 (L.I. 2423) cover confidentiality generally but are silent on AI tools; the General Legal Council has issued no interpretive guidance.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Ghana's legal profession is entering the AI era without a regulatory framework (Dennislaw, 27 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://www.dennislawgh.com/blog/ghanas-legal-profession-is-entering-the-ai-era-without-a-regulatory-framework" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "L.I. 2423 imposes competence and diligence duties but does not name technology or AI; no General Legal Council guidance applying them to AI exists.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Ghana's legal profession is entering the AI era without a regulatory framework (Dennislaw, 27 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://www.dennislawgh.com/blog/ghanas-legal-profession-is-entering-the-ai-era-without-a-regulatory-framework" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Ghana Bar Association or General Legal Council generative-AI guidance found. Commentary published 27 Mar 2026 records that the GBA has made no input on AI in legal practice and calls on the GLC to clarify how existing duties apply.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Ghana's legal profession is entering the AI era without a regulatory framework (Dennislaw, 27 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://www.dennislawgh.com/blog/ghanas-legal-profession-is-entering-the-ai-era-without-a-regulatory-framework" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The Data Protection Act 2012 (Act 843) applies generally; no Data Protection Commission guidance specific to AI was found on dataprotection.org.gh as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No AI statute. President Mahama launched Ghana's first National AI Strategy on 24 Apr 2026, targeting education, healthcare, agriculture, finance and public service delivery; justice, courts and legal services are not named. It proposes a Responsible AI Authority within a year.", "documents": [ "gh-national-ai-strategy-2025-2035" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ghana launches National AI Strategy (Ministry of Communication, Digital Technology and Innovations, 24 Apr 2026)", "url": "https://moc.gov.gh/2026/04/24/ghana-launches-national-ai-strategy-to-drive-digital-transformation-and-economic-growth/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Ghana launches National AI Strategy (Ministry of Communication, Digital Technology and Innovations, 24 Apr 2026)", "url": "https://moc.gov.gh/2026/04/24/ghana-launches-national-ai-strategy-to-drive-digital-transformation-and-economic-growth/" }, { "label": "President Mahama launches Ghana's National AI Strategy (Ministry of the Interior, official)", "url": "https://www.mint.gov.gh/president-mahama-launches-ghanas-national-ai-strategy-calls-for-ai-that-reflects-ghanaian-values/" }, { "label": "Ghana's legal profession is entering the AI era without a regulatory framework (Dennislaw, 27 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://www.dennislawgh.com/blog/ghanas-legal-profession-is-entering-the-ai-era-without-a-regulatory-framework" }, { "label": "Judicial Service of Ghana (checked for AI policy, none found)", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.gh/" } ] }, { "id": "gr", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/gr", "name": "Greece", "iso": "GR", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Greece regulates AI horizontally through Law 4961/2022 on emerging technologies and Law 5321/2026 implementing the EU AI Act, but has no rule, bar guidance or reported court decision specific to lawyers' or judges' use of AI. The Athens Bar relays CCBE material and justice-sector AI deployments are reported only in general terms.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Athens Bar Association", "url": "https://www.dsa.gr/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://ministryofjustice.gr/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Hellenic Data Protection Authority", "url": "https://www.dpa.gr/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Special Secretariat for AI and Data Governance", "url": "https://ai.gov.gr/", "role": "AI Act authority" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026; Greek legal commentary discusses only the United States Mata v Avianca case.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judicial guidance on judges' use of AI found as of 4 September 2026; the CEPEJ guidelines are the only applicable reference.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No national rule; EU AI Act Annex III point 8 applies. Law 4961/2022 requires algorithmic impact assessments and registers for public-sector AI, which would cover court systems, but it does not address adjudication expressly.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal 500 Greece AI chapter (secondary)", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/greece-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Greek bar guidance; the Athens Bar's AI page sits under its CCBE activities and relays CCBE material. A direct fetch of the bar page returned 404.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "The Lawyers' Code and Code of Conduct, in the consolidated October 2025 edition, contain no AI-specific competence rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Greek bar guidance on generative AI found as of 4 September 2026; the Athens Bar relays CCBE documents and runs seminars.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The OECD reported in June 2025 that Greek justice-sector AI is used for document processing, case-law search, speech-to-text and translation, but no policy document governing court AI was located and the digital-justice reforms could not be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "OECD, Governing with AI: AI in justice administration", "url": "https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/06/governing-with-artificial-intelligence_398fa287/full-report/ai-in-justice-administration-and-access-to-justice_f0cbe651.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Hellenic Data Protection Authority Opinion 8/2026, on a public authority's AI complaint-triage system, required explicit human approval before acting on AI outputs; Opinion 9/2026 addressed the authority's AI Act role. Neither is legal-sector specific and the official texts were not opened.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal 500 Greece AI chapter (secondary)", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/greece-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "Law 4961/2022 on emerging technologies requires public-sector algorithmic impact assessments, AI registers and employer transparency. Law 5321/2026 implements Regulation 2024/1689, amends Law 4961/2022 and designates the data-protection authority as principal market-surveillance authority and EETT as notifying authority.", "documents": [ "gr-law-5321-2026-ai-act-implementation", "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Special Secretariat for AI resources page (official)", "url": "https://ai.gov.gr/en/resources/" }, { "label": "Government Gazette record", "url": "https://search.et.gr/el/fek/?fekId=802524" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Greek court decision on hallucinated citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched because the research budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector vendor guidance found; Law 4961/2022 public-sector AI procurement duties apply to courts as public bodies.", "documents": [ "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Special Secretariat for AI and Data Governance: resources", "url": "https://ai.gov.gr/en/resources/" }, { "label": "Legal 500 Greece: Artificial Intelligence chapter", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/greece-artificial-intelligence/" }, { "label": "Athens Bar Association", "url": "https://www.dsa.gr/" } ] }, { "id": "gt", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/gt", "name": "Guatemala", "iso": "GT", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Guatemala has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the judiciary, Colegio de Abogados y Notarios, Congress and privacy materials found no AI court rule, judicial policy, lawyer guidance, legal-AI sanction or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Judicial Branch (Organismo Judicial)", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Bar and Notaries Association of Guatemala", "url": "https://www.cang.gt/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Congress of Guatemala", "role": "legislature" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Colegio de Abogados y Notarios de Guatemala found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No comprehensive AI-specific data-protection authority guidance relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Guatemala", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=GT" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Colegio de Abogados y Notarios de Guatemala", "url": "https://www.cang.gt/" }, { "label": "Ministry of Economy of Guatemala", "url": "https://www.mineco.gob.gt/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Guatemala", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=GT" } ] }, { "id": "hn", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/hn", "name": "Honduras", "iso": "HN", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Honduras has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the Supreme Court, bar, legislature and data-protection materials found no AI filing disclosure rule, judicial-use policy, lawyer ethics guidance, sanction case or horizontal AI statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice / Judicial Branch", "url": "https://www.poderjudicial.gob.hn/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Honduran Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados de Honduras)", "url": "https://www.colegiodeabogados.hn/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Public Prosecutor / Attorney General Office", "url": "https://pgr.gob.hn/", "role": "government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Colegio de Abogados de Honduras found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Honduran law includes habeas-data and sectoral privacy provisions; no AI-specific legal-services guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Honduras", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=HN" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Colegio de Abogados de Honduras", "url": "https://www.colegiodeabogados.hn/" }, { "label": "Procuraduria General de la Republica de Honduras", "url": "https://pgr.gob.hn/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Honduras", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=HN" } ] }, { "id": "hk", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/hk", "name": "Hong Kong SAR", "iso": "HK", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "Hong Kong regulates legal AI through soft law on three tracks: the Judiciary's July 2024 guidelines for judges and support staff, the Law Society's Circular 25-824 of December 2025, and a strong data-protection layer from the Privacy Commissioner (2021 guidance, a 2024 Model Framework and a 2025 employee checklist). There is no court practice direction and no AI statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Hong Kong Judiciary", "url": "https://www.judiciary.hk/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Law Society of Hong Kong", "url": "https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD)", "url": "https://www.pcpd.org.hk/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Digital Policy Office, Government of the HKSAR", "url": "https://www.digitalpolicy.gov.hk/", "role": "government" } ], "jurisdiction": "hong-kong", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Hong Kong practice direction requires parties to disclose or certify generative-AI use in filings; the Judiciary's 2024 guidelines are addressed to judges and court staff, not litigants, and no AI entry appears in the courts' practice-direction index as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "hk-judiciary-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Hong Kong Judiciary — practice directions index", "url": "https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/pd/pdcontent.jsp?lang=EN" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Both instruments impose it as professional practice rather than rule: the Law Society's Circular 25-824 requires solicitors to verify AI-generated content, including citations, before use; the Judiciary's guidelines make judicial officers responsible for all output used and require verification of any permitted administrative use.", "documents": [ "hk-law-society-circular-25-824-generative-ai", "hk-judiciary-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of Hong Kong — Circular 25-824 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/pub_e/circular/2025/25-824a1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI for Judges, Judicial Officers and Support Staff (July 2024) permit administrative and drafting-assistance uses with human review, forbid entering confidential or sensitive case material into public tools, and make the judicial officer responsible for all output used.", "documents": [ "hk-judiciary-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Hong Kong Judiciary — generative AI guidelines (official PDF, July 2024)", "url": "https://www.judiciary.hk/doc/en/court_services_facilities/guidelines_on_the_use_of_generative_ai.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Judiciary's guidelines state that using generative AI for legal analysis, research or reasoning in judicial work is not recommended, a discouragement rather than the outright prohibition used in New South Wales or Victoria. No rule bars AI from adjudicative reasoning in terms.", "documents": [ "hk-judiciary-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Hong Kong Judiciary — generative AI guidelines (PDF)", "url": "https://www.judiciary.hk/doc/en/court_services_facilities/guidelines_on_the_use_of_generative_ai.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AI Hallucination Cases database — Hong Kong filter", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/?states=Hong+Kong" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No Hong Kong evidence rule or judicial guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake material was located before the session search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Circular 25-824 requires client confidential information to be kept out of tools without safeguards. The PCPD's March 2025 employee checklist gives organisations, including firms, a template for what may be entered into which tools, and the Judiciary's guidelines bar confidential case material from public tools.", "documents": [ "hk-law-society-circular-25-824-generative-ai", "hk-judiciary-generative-ai-guidelines", "hk-pcpd-checklist-generative-ai-employees" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PCPD — Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees (media statement, 31 Mar 2025)", "url": "https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/news_events/media_statements/press_20250331.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No amendment to the Hong Kong Solicitors' Guide to Professional Conduct. Circular 25-824 tells solicitors to understand the tool and its data handling before adoption and cautions that output may be inaccurate or fabricated.", "documents": [ "hk-law-society-circular-25-824-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of Hong Kong — Circular 25-824 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/pub_e/circular/2025/25-824a1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established for the profession. The Judiciary's guidelines cover support staff, and the PCPD checklist asks organisations to define which categories of employee may use which tools, but no legal-sector supervision rule or guidance was located.", "documents": [ "hk-judiciary-generative-ai-guidelines", "hk-pcpd-checklist-generative-ai-employees" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. Neither Circular 25-824 nor the Digital Policy Office guideline was found to require solicitors to inform clients of AI use; the PCPD framework addresses transparency to data subjects, not to legal clients.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No Hong Kong ruling or guidance on charging for AI-assisted work was located before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. The Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159) restricts the provision of legal services, but no Hong Kong determination applying it to consumer AI legal products was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Circular 25-824, Generative AI in Legal Practice: Risks and Tips (December 2025), is the profession's principal instrument, covering verification, confidentiality and tool selection. No equivalent Hong Kong Bar Association guidance for barristers was located.", "documents": [ "hk-law-society-circular-25-824-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of Hong Kong — Circular 25-824 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/pub_e/circular/2025/25-824a1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. The Judiciary's guidelines govern individual use by judges and staff but no policy on the Judiciary's institutional AI deployment (transcription, translation, filing triage) was located.", "documents": [ "hk-judiciary-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The strongest layer. PCPD published Guidance on the Ethical Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (2021), the Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework (11 June 2024) covering AI strategy and governance, risk assessment and human oversight, model customisation and stakeholder communication, and a Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees (31 March 2025).", "documents": [ "hk-pcpd-ai-model-personal-data-protection-framework", "hk-pcpd-checklist-generative-ai-employees", "hk-pcpd-guidance-ethical-development-use-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PCPD — Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework (official PDF, June 2024)", "url": "https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/resources_centre/publications/files/ai_protection_framework.pdf" }, { "label": "PCPD — media statement on the Model Framework (11 June 2024)", "url": "https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/news_events/media_statements/press_20240611.html" }, { "label": "PCPD — media statement on the employee Gen AI checklist (31 Mar 2025)", "url": "https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/news_events/media_statements/press_20250331.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI statute and no risk classification of justice uses. The Digital Policy Office's Hong Kong Generative AI Technical and Application Guideline (April 2025, updated December 2025) is a voluntary cross-sector framework for developers and deployers and forms part of the Ethical AI Framework.", "documents": [ "hk-digital-policy-office-generative-ai-guideline" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Policy Office — HK Generative AI Technical and Application Guideline (PDF)", "url": "https://www.digitalpolicy.gov.hk/en/our_work/data_governance/policies_standards/ethical_ai_framework/doc/HK_Generative_AI_Technical_and_Application_Guideline_en.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Two reported decisions, both against unrepresented parties and both ending without sanction: Yu Hon Tong Thomas v Centaline Property Agency (High Court, 26 February 2025) and Licksun Company Limited v Occupiers of Lot No. 552 (District Court, 8 August 2025), where six lodged authorities were found not to exist and the court held the lodging had the effect of misleading it.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AI Hallucination Cases database — Hong Kong filter (2 cases)", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/?states=Hong+Kong" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No HKIAC or eBRAM generative-AI protocol or practice note was located before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No mandatory AI component in the Law Society's Continuing Professional Development scheme was located; the PCPD Model Framework recommends AI training for employees generally.", "documents": [ "hk-pcpd-ai-model-personal-data-protection-framework" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The PCPD Model Framework's Part I is explicitly about governance considerations for procuring AI solutions, and Part II about risk assessment and the level of human oversight; the Digital Policy Office guideline adds a technical framework for deployers. Neither is legal-sector specific.", "documents": [ "hk-pcpd-ai-model-personal-data-protection-framework", "hk-digital-policy-office-generative-ai-guideline" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PCPD — Model Personal Data Protection Framework, Parts I-II (PDF)", "url": "https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/resources_centre/publications/files/ai_protection_framework.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Hong Kong Judiciary — Guidelines on the Use of Generative AI for Judges, Judicial Officers and Support Staff (PDF)", "url": "https://www.judiciary.hk/doc/en/court_services_facilities/guidelines_on_the_use_of_generative_ai.pdf" }, { "label": "Law Society of Hong Kong — Circular 25-824 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/-/media/HKLS/pub_e/circular/2025/25-824a1.pdf" }, { "label": "PCPD — Artificial Intelligence: Model Personal Data Protection Framework (PDF)", "url": "https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/resources_centre/publications/files/ai_protection_framework.pdf" }, { "label": "PCPD — Checklist on Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI by Employees (media statement)", "url": "https://www.pcpd.org.hk/english/news_events/media_statements/press_20250331.html" }, { "label": "Digital Policy Office — HK Generative AI Technical and Application Guideline (PDF)", "url": "https://www.digitalpolicy.gov.hk/en/our_work/data_governance/policies_standards/ethical_ai_framework/doc/HK_Generative_AI_Technical_and_Application_Guideline_en.pdf" } ] }, { "id": "hu", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/hu", "name": "Hungary", "iso": "HU", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 no Hungarian Bar Association generative-AI guidance, judiciary AI policy or reported hallucinated-citation case could be confirmed. Directly applicable EU law — the AI Act's Art. 4 literacy duty and the Annex III point 8(a) high-risk classification of justice AI, deferred to 2 Dec 2027 — is the operative layer. NAIH has published only general generative-AI awareness material.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Hungarian Bar Association [Magyar Ügyvédi Kamara, MÜK]", "url": "https://www.xn--mk-xka.hu/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Curia of Hungary [Kúria]", "url": "https://kuria-birosag.hu/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "National Office for the Judiciary [Országos Bírósági Hivatal, OBH]", "url": "https://birosag.hu/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information [Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság, NAIH]", "url": "https://www.naih.hu/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no MÜK or court statement on a duty to verify AI output could be confirmed. The MÜK homepage was checked on 4 September 2026 and surfaced no AI item, but the Szakmai álláspontok and Szabályzattár sections could not be searched.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Magyar Ügyvédi Kamara", "url": "https://www.xn--mk-xka.hu/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Kúria homepage was checked on 4 September 2026 and carried no AI item; birosag.hu (OBH) returned HTTP 403. No judiciary AI guidance confirmed either way.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kúria", "url": "https://kuria-birosag.hu/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Hungary as a Council of Europe member but is not a domestic instrument.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no MÜK guidance on client data in AI tools could be confirmed. Hungarian legal professional privilege [ügyvédi titok] under the 2017 Act on Legal Practice applies generally but does not name AI.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "EU AI Act Art. 4 AI literacy duty applies directly to Hungarian law firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025. No domestic competence rule naming AI was confirmed.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The MÜK homepage was checked on 4 September 2026 and showed no AI news, regulation or professional position; its Szakmai álláspontok and Szabályzattár repositories could not be searched without search access, so absence of guidance is not established.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Magyar Ügyvédi Kamara", "url": "https://www.xn--mk-xka.hu/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — birosag.hu (OBH) returned HTTP 403 on 4 September 2026 and no court AI deployment policy could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NAIH publishes general generative-AI awareness material — a Hungarian adaptation of the CNIL/PIPC '6 questions' poster on generative AI — and relays EDPB guidelines, including 2/2026 on anonymisation and 3/2026 on web scraping for generative AI (July 2026). Nothing legal-sector specific.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "NAIH — official site", "url": "https://www.naih.hu/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "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. Hungary's designated national supervisory authorities were not verified in this session.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2026/1744", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj/eng" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No Hungarian court sanction or disciplinary decision for hallucinated citations was found, but no case-law search was possible. Absence is not established.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no rule of the Commercial Arbitration Court attached to the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "EU AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty applies to Hungarian firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025. No domestic CLE requirement naming AI was confirmed; the MÜK training rules could not be checked.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Magyar Ügyvédi Kamara (MÜK) — official site", "url": "https://www.xn--mk-xka.hu/" }, { "label": "Kúria — official site", "url": "https://kuria-birosag.hu/" }, { "label": "NAIH — National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information", "url": "https://www.naih.hu/" } ] }, { "id": "is", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/is", "name": "Iceland", "iso": "IS", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Iceland has no profession-specific rule or guidance on AI in legal practice as of 4 September 2026. The Icelandic Bar Association publishes nothing on gervigreind and the Judicial Administration has no AI policy. As an EEA state Iceland is not bound by the EU AI Act until it is incorporated into the EEA Agreement.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Icelandic Bar Association [Lögmannafélag Íslands]", "url": "https://www.lmfi.is/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Judicial Administration [Dómstólasýslan]", "url": "https://www.domstolasyslan.is/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Data Protection Authority [Persónuvernd]", "url": "https://personuvernd.is/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Icelandic court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings; the Judicial Administration publishes no AI material as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Dómstólasýslan", "url": "https://www.domstolasyslan.is/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, bar guidance or reported case imposing an explicit duty to verify AI output or citations was found as of 4 September 2026. The Bar Association's site carries no AI material.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lögmannafélag Íslands", "url": "https://www.lmfi.is/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "Dómstólasýslan has published no guidance for judges or court staff on generative AI as of 4 September 2026. CEPEJ(2025)18Final reaches Iceland as a Council of Europe member state but is non-binding and has no Icelandic implementing instrument.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Dómstólasýslan", "url": "https://www.domstolasyslan.is/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning; the position rests on judicial independence under the Constitution and the Courts Act, not on an AI-specific instrument. No rule found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026; Iceland applies free evaluation of evidence.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "Lawyers' confidentiality under the Lawyers Act [lög um lögmenn nr. 77/1998] and the Bar's code of conduct applies generally, but no rule or guidance addressing client data entered into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lögmannafélag Íslands", "url": "https://www.lmfi.is/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No competence rule naming AI or technology found. The EU AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty does NOT bind Icelandic firms unless and until the AI Act is incorporated into the EEA Agreement; incorporation could not be verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No duty on supervising principals or firms over AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients of or obtain consent for AI use in legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products and unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "Lögmannafélag Íslands has published no generative-AI guidance, circular or code amendment; its site carries no gervigreind material as of 4 September 2026, though a 'digital sovereignty' panel is scheduled for Lagadagurinn 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lögmannafélag Íslands", "url": "https://www.lmfi.is/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No policy on the Icelandic courts' own AI deployment (transcription, translation, triage) found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Dómstólasýslan", "url": "https://www.domstolasyslan.is/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Persónuvernd maintains 'Gervigreind' (artificial intelligence) as one of its main published subject areas, alongside surveillance, children and health data, advising awareness of one's own and others' privacy when using AI. The topic page is client-side rendered and its detailed content could not be captured.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Persónuvernd — homepage listing the Gervigreind subject area", "url": "https://personuvernd.is/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Iceland is an EEA state, not an EU member. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 binds Iceland only once incorporated into the EEA Agreement by an EEA Joint Committee decision and transposed. No incorporation decision could be verified as of 4 September 2026; the EFTA EEA-Lex record was unreachable.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (EU text)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Icelandic court sanction, costs order or bar disciplinary decision over hallucinated citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No Icelandic arbitration or mediation institution AI rule or guideline found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "Icelandic lawyers are subject to continuing-education requirements, but no AI-specific training mandate was found as of 4 September 2026. AI Act Art. 4 is not in force for Iceland absent EEA incorporation.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on procuring or contracting legal AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Lögmannafélag Íslands (Icelandic Bar Association)", "url": "https://www.lmfi.is/" }, { "label": "Dómstólasýslan (Judicial Administration)", "url": "https://www.domstolasyslan.is/" }, { "label": "Persónuvernd (Data Protection Authority) — Gervigreind subject area", "url": "https://personuvernd.is/" }, { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act; EEA relevance pending incorporation)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ] }, { "id": "in", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/in", "name": "India", "iso": "IN", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 India regulates legal AI through court policy and case law rather than statute. The Supreme Court's draft Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026 would mandate AI disclosure in pleadings; Kerala, Gujarat and Punjab and Haryana High Courts already restrict judicial officers; two 2026 Supreme Court judgments set a zero-tolerance verification standard.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of India (AI Committee)", "url": "https://www.sci.gov.in/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Bar Council of India", "url": "https://www.barcouncilofindia.org/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology", "url": "https://www.meity.gov.in/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "High Court of Gujarat", "url": "https://gujarathighcourt.nic.in/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "High Court of Kerala", "url": "https://hckerala.gov.in/", "role": "court" } ], "jurisdiction": "india", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Draft Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026, issued by the Supreme Court AI Committee on 3 June 2026, would require lawyers and parties to declare AI use in pleadings; comments closed 15 July 2026 and the text is not notified. No Indian court currently mandates declaration.", "documents": [ "india-supreme-court-draft-ai-regulations-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court draft AI regulations (official PDF)", "url": "https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2026/06/2026060342.pdf" }, { "label": "Medianama on Justice Prathiba Singh's remarks", "url": "https://www.medianama.com/2026/08/223-justice-prathiba-singh-ai-disclosure-lawyers/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Pooja Ramesh Singh v J&K Bank (2 July 2026) holds that Bar and Bench owe a zero-tolerance duty to verify AI-generated authority and that citing unverified AI judgments is advocate misconduct; Gadiya (2 September 2026) extends this to quasi-judicial officers. Kerala and Gujarat High Court policies impose verification on judicial officers.", "documents": [ "in-sc-pooja-ramesh-singh-v-jk-bank-2026", "in-sc-vijay-gadiya-v-union-of-india-2026", "kerala-hc-ai-policy-district-judiciary", "in-gujarat-hc-ai-policy-judicial-court-administration", "india-supreme-court-draft-ai-regulations-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Pooja Ramesh Singh v J&K Bank (Indian Kanoon)", "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113338666/" }, { "label": "Gujarat High Court AI policy (official PDF)", "url": "https://gujarathighcourt.nic.in/hccms/sites/default/files/miscnotifications/Policy%20on%20the%20use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Judicial%20and%20Court%20Administration.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Regional rather than national. The Kerala High Court policy of 19 July 2025 and the Gujarat High Court policy of April 2026 bind district judiciaries: AI only for research and administration through approved tools, never for findings, orders, bail or sentencing. Punjab and Haryana bans AI outright for judicial officers.", "documents": [ "kerala-hc-ai-policy-district-judiciary", "in-gujarat-hc-ai-policy-judicial-court-administration", "in-punjab-haryana-hc-ai-ban-judicial-officers", "india-supreme-court-draft-ai-regulations-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Gujarat High Court AI policy (official PDF)", "url": "https://gujarathighcourt.nic.in/hccms/sites/default/files/miscnotifications/Policy%20on%20the%20use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Judicial%20and%20Court%20Administration.pdf" }, { "label": "Law Trend on the Punjab and Haryana directive", "url": "https://lawtrend.in/punjab-and-haryana-high-court-bans-judicial-officers-from-using-ai-for-judgments-and-legal-research/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "binding", "note": "Kerala and Gujarat High Court policies bar AI from decision-making, evidence evaluation, bail and sentencing. In Gadiya (2 September 2026) the Supreme Court set aside a penalty order built on AI-fabricated citations, holding that AI may serve as training wheels but must not take the pilot's seat. Draft national regulations would generalise the prohibition.", "documents": [ "kerala-hc-ai-policy-district-judiciary", "in-gujarat-hc-ai-policy-judicial-court-administration", "in-sc-vijay-gadiya-v-union-of-india-2026", "india-supreme-court-draft-ai-regulations-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Gadiya v Union of India (Supreme Court of India official PDF)", "url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/21991/21991_2026_7_1501_73957_Judgement_02-Sep-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "proposed", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "india-supreme-court-draft-ai-regulations-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ThePrint on the Delhi High Court order", "url": "https://theprint.in/judiciary/delhi-hc-junks-plea-crafted-by-chatgpt-with-fake-quotes-cases-what-it-said-pulling-up-erring-lawyer/2751518/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific or deepfake-specific evidence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026. The Bar Council of India circular of 17 July 2026 prohibits advocates from creating or circulating deepfake or synthetic courtroom content, but that is a conduct rule rather than an evidence rule.", "documents": [ "in-bci-digital-conduct-circular-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Verdictum on the BCI circular", "url": "https://www.verdictum.in/news/bar-council-of-india-digital-social-media-conduct-legal-practitioners-1617984" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar rule or guidance restricting client data in AI tools was found. Kerala and Gujarat High Court policies bar judicial officers from uploading case material to public AI tools. The Bar Council committee on AI ordered by the Supreme Court had published nothing as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "kerala-hc-ai-policy-district-judiciary", "in-gujarat-hc-ai-policy-judicial-court-administration" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "Bar Council of India Rules contain no technology or AI competence requirement; no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No supervision duty specific to AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance requiring lawyers to inform clients of AI use found as of 4 September 2026. The draft Supreme Court regulations address disclosure to the court, not to clients.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026; the general prohibition on non-advocates practising under sections 29 to 33 of the Advocates Act 1961 has not been applied to AI tools.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Bar Council of India circular of 17 July 2026 on digital and social-media conduct requires advocates to disclose generative-AI use in online legal-awareness content and prohibits fabricated judgments, AI-generated non-existent case law and deepfake court content, with disciplinary consequences. No general generative-AI practice guidance exists yet.", "documents": [ "in-bci-digital-conduct-circular-2026", "in-sc-pooja-ramesh-singh-v-jk-bank-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Verdictum on the BCI circular", "url": "https://www.verdictum.in/news/bar-council-of-india-digital-social-media-conduct-legal-practitioners-1617984" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Regional. Kerala and Gujarat High Court policies restrict district courts to approved AI tools for research, translation and administration. The Supreme Court runs SUVAS for translation and SUPACE for research assistance; the draft 2026 regulations would create an apex AI body, High Court AI committees and a central CoRE-AI centre.", "documents": [ "kerala-hc-ai-policy-district-judiciary", "in-gujarat-hc-ai-policy-judicial-court-administration", "india-supreme-court-draft-ai-regulations-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court draft AI regulations (official PDF)", "url": "https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2026/06/2026060342.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No data-protection guidance specific to legal AI found as of 4 September 2026. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 is being commenced in phases and the Gujarat High Court policy is to be read with it once in force. MeitY's governance guidelines are non-binding and sector-agnostic.", "documents": [ "in-meity-india-ai-governance-guidelines-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "News on AIR on the India AI Governance Guidelines", "url": "https://www.newsonair.gov.in/meity-unveils-india-ai-governance-guidelines-to-promote-safe-and-responsible-ai-adoption" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "India has no AI statute. MeitY's India AI Governance Guidelines of 5 November 2025 set seven principles and a sectoral do-no-harm approach with no risk classification for justice uses; regulation is left to sectoral bodies, which for courts means the Supreme Court's draft regulations.", "documents": [ "in-meity-india-ai-governance-guidelines-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "News on AIR on the India AI Governance Guidelines", "url": "https://www.newsonair.gov.in/meity-unveils-india-ai-governance-guidelines-to-promote-safe-and-responsible-ai-adoption" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Pooja Ramesh Singh (2 July 2026) set aside orders resting on six hallucinated precedents and declared unverified AI citation advocate misconduct; Gadiya (2 September 2026) set aside a Rs 425.27 crore customs penalty and recommended disciplinary action. Earlier decisions came from the Delhi and Bombay High Courts and ITAT Bengaluru.", "documents": [ "in-sc-pooja-ramesh-singh-v-jk-bank-2026", "in-sc-vijay-gadiya-v-union-of-india-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Pooja Ramesh Singh v J&K Bank (Indian Kanoon)", "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113338666/" }, { "label": "iPleaders survey of Indian AI-citation cases", "url": "https://blog.ipleaders.in/ai-hallucinated-case-law-fake-citations-india/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI rules or guidelines from MCIA, DIAC, IIAC or ICA found as of 4 September 2026; the MCIA Rules 2025 are silent on AI.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "MCIA Rules", "url": "https://mcia.org.in/mcia-rules.php" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing education for advocates. The Gujarat High Court policy provides for training of judicial officers and staff, and the draft Supreme Court regulations contemplate capacity building through CoRE-AI.", "documents": [ "in-gujarat-hc-ai-policy-judicial-court-administration", "india-supreme-court-draft-ai-regulations-2026" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "Regional. Kerala and Gujarat High Court policies permit only tools approved by the High Court and treat public AI platforms as unapproved for case material. The draft Supreme Court regulations would centralise vetting through AI committees and CoRE-AI. No vendor due-diligence guidance exists for law firms.", "documents": [ "kerala-hc-ai-policy-district-judiciary", "in-gujarat-hc-ai-policy-judicial-court-administration", "india-supreme-court-draft-ai-regulations-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Gujarat High Court AI policy (official PDF)", "url": "https://gujarathighcourt.nic.in/hccms/sites/default/files/miscnotifications/Policy%20on%20the%20use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Judicial%20and%20Court%20Administration.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court draft Regulations for Use of AI in Courts, 2026 (official PDF)", "url": "https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2026/06/2026060342.pdf" }, { "label": "Pooja Ramesh Singh v J&K Bank, 2026 INSC 668", "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113338666/" }, { "label": "Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v Union of India, 2026 INSC 947", "url": "https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2026/21991/21991_2026_7_1501_73957_Judgement_02-Sep-2026.pdf" }, { "label": "Gujarat High Court AI policy (official PDF)", "url": "https://gujarathighcourt.nic.in/hccms/sites/default/files/miscnotifications/Policy%20on%20the%20use%20of%20Artificial%20Intelligence%20in%20the%20Judicial%20and%20Court%20Administration.pdf" }, { "label": "Kerala High Court AI policy for the district judiciary (mirror)", "url": "https://images.assettype.com/theleaflet/2025-07-22/mt4bw6n7/Kerala_HC_AI_Guidelines.pdf" }, { "label": "Bar Council of India digital-conduct circular (Verdictum)", "url": "https://www.verdictum.in/news/bar-council-of-india-digital-social-media-conduct-legal-practitioners-1617984" }, { "label": "India AI Governance Guidelines (News on AIR)", "url": "https://www.newsonair.gov.in/meity-unveils-india-ai-governance-guidelines-to-promote-safe-and-responsible-ai-adoption" } ] }, { "id": "id", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/id", "name": "Indonesia", "iso": "ID", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Indonesia's first legal-AI instrument came from the Bar: PERADI issued its AI guideline for advocates on 6 August 2026, a risk-tiered ethics standard requiring advocates to review every AI output. A 2 September 2026 Supreme Court letter added a narrow AI-services restriction for draft criminal-code judgment templates.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Indonesia [Mahkamah Agung RI]", "url": "https://www.mahkamahagung.go.id/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Indonesian Bar Association [Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia, PERADI]", "url": "https://peradi.id/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Communication and Digital [Komdigi]", "url": "https://jdih.komdigi.go.id/", "role": "government" }, { "name": "Judicial Commission [Komisi Yudisial]", "url": "https://komisiyudisial.go.id/", "role": "judiciary" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Indonesian rule requires disclosure of AI use in court filings; no PERMA or SEMA imposes AI certification. PERADI's 2026 guideline speaks of transparency to clients but sets no filing-level disclosure duty.", "documents": [ "id-peradi-pedoman-ai-advokat" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PERADI — announcement of the AI guideline for advocates (6 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://peradi.id/peradi-terbitkan-pedoman-etika-ai-pertama-di-indonesia-perkokoh-integritas-advokat-di-era-digital/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "PERADI's guideline requires that every AI output pass through the advocate's own intellectual examination and filtration, with full professional accountability remaining with the advocate.", "documents": [ "id-peradi-pedoman-ai-advokat" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PERADI — AI guideline announcement (6 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://peradi.id/peradi-terbitkan-pedoman-etika-ai-pertama-di-indonesia-perkokoh-integritas-advokat-di-era-digital/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Narrow instrument only. Letter No. 112/WKMA.Y/HK2.1/IX/2026 of 2 September 2026 bars circulating draft judgment-writing materials outside the working team, including by uploading them to document-processing and artificial-intelligence services. No general SEMA or PERMA on judicial AI use was found.", "documents": [ "id-mahkamah-agung-letter-112-2026-ai-document-services" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Mahkamah Agung — letter 112/WKMA.Y/HK2.1/IX/2026 with annex (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.mahkamahagung.go.id/media/14915" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Profession only. No law bars AI-made judicial decisions. PERADI's guideline prohibits fully automated legal decisions and any use that eliminates human control. The draft Presidential Regulation on AI ethics is reported to include prohibited-use categories.", "documents": [ "id-peradi-pedoman-ai-advokat" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PERADI — AI guideline announcement", "url": "https://peradi.id/peradi-terbitkan-pedoman-etika-ai-pertama-di-indonesia-perkokoh-integritas-advokat-di-era-digital/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "Electronic evidence is governed by the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (UU 11/2008, amended by UU 19/2016 and UU 1/2024). There is no AI- or deepfake-specific authentication rule; the question is discussed only in academic literature.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "JDIH Komdigi — UU No. 1 Tahun 2024", "url": "https://jdih.komdigi.go.id/produk_hukum/view/id/884/t/undang-undang-nomor-1-tahun-2024" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "PERADI's guideline bans AI uses that breach confidentiality and requires alignment with the Personal Data Protection Law. Separately, a Deputy Chief Justice letter of 2 September 2026 (No. 112/WKMA.Y/HK2.1/IX/2026), annex C.3, bans uploading draft judicial templates to AI document-processing services.", "documents": [ "id-peradi-pedoman-ai-advokat", "id-mahkamah-agung-letter-112-2026-ai-document-services" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Mahkamah Agung — letter 112/WKMA.Y/HK2.1/IX/2026 with annex (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.mahkamahagung.go.id/media/14915" }, { "label": "PERADI — AI guideline announcement", "url": "https://peradi.id/peradi-terbitkan-pedoman-etika-ai-pertama-di-indonesia-perkokoh-integritas-advokat-di-era-digital/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Kode Etik Advokat Indonesia (2002) predates AI; article 3(1) allows declining work outside one's expertise. PERADI's 2026 guideline requires AI to be treated as assistant or augmentation, not a replacement for human reasoning, preserving diligence and competence.", "documents": [ "id-peradi-pedoman-ai-advokat" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PERADI — Kode Etik Advokat Indonesia", "url": "https://peradi.or.id/index.php/profil/detail/kode-etik-advokat" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "PERADI's guideline provides that firms remain obliged to give trainee advocates adequate mentoring, training and learning opportunities, and that AI must not replace the mentorship of junior advocates.", "documents": [ "id-peradi-pedoman-ai-advokat" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PERADI — AI guideline announcement", "url": "https://peradi.id/peradi-terbitkan-pedoman-etika-ai-pertama-di-indonesia-perkokoh-integritas-advokat-di-era-digital/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Weak. PERADI's guideline requires transparency to clients and bars AI uses that mislead clients or courts, but does not require informed consent before using AI on a matter.", "documents": [ "id-peradi-pedoman-ai-advokat" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PERADI — AI guideline announcement", "url": "https://peradi.id/peradi-terbitkan-pedoman-etika-ai-pertama-di-indonesia-perkokoh-integritas-advokat-di-era-digital/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule on billing for AI-assisted work. Advocate fees are set by agreement under the Advocates Law (UU 18/2003) and PERADI's AI guideline does not address fees.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Advocates Law reserves advocate services to admitted advocates, but no authority has applied it to AI legal tools or chatbots and no enforcement action was identified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "PERADI issued the Pedoman Penggunaan Kecerdasan Buatan bagi Advokat Indonesia on 6 August 2026, Indonesia's first bar AI guideline, using permitted, supervised and prohibited risk tiers. It is a non-binding professional standard; the full text is not published at an official URL.", "documents": [ "id-peradi-pedoman-ai-advokat" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PERADI — AI guideline announcement (6 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://peradi.id/peradi-terbitkan-pedoman-etika-ai-pertama-di-indonesia-perkokoh-integritas-advokat-di-era-digital/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Operational rather than regulated. The Supreme Court deploys Smart Majelis, an AI application that automatically assigns judicial panels, piloted in August 2025 and shipped in SIPP v6.0.1 from November 2025, and is developing a Decision Support System to reduce inconsistent decisions. Both were deployed by administrative instruction, not by PERMA or SEMA.", "documents": [ "id-mahkamah-agung-letter-112-2026-ai-document-services" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Indonesia — Directorate General of Religious Courts (Badilag)", "url": "https://badilag.mahkamahagung.go.id/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Personal Data Protection Law (UU No. 27 Tahun 2022) has been fully in force since October 2024, but its mandated implementing Government Regulation and the supervisory authority (Lembaga Pelindungan Data Pribadi) had still not been issued or established as of mid-2026, leaving AI-specific enforcement guidance absent.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "JDIH Komdigi — Pelindungan Data Pribadi instruments", "url": "https://jdih.komdigi.go.id/produk_hukum/pencarian?tentang=Pelindungan%20Data%20Pribadi&kategori=all&tahun=all" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Circular Letter of the Minister of Communication and Informatics No. 9 of 2023 on AI ethics (19 December 2023) is the only in-force instrument: nine ethical values addressed to AI businesses and electronic system operators, with no mention of courts or legal services. Two draft Presidential Regulations awaited signature in September 2026.", "documents": [ "id-komdigi-surat-edaran-9-2023-etika-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Komdigi — Surat Edaran Menteri No. 9 Tahun 2023 tentang Etika Kecerdasan Artifisial", "url": "https://jdih.komdigi.go.id/produk_hukum/view/id/883/t/surat-edaran-menteri-komunikasi-dan-informatika-nomor-9-tahun-2023" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Indonesian court decision or Dewan Kehormatan disposition sanctioning AI-fabricated citations was found as of 4 September 2026; the Charlotin database contains no Indonesian entry, and Indonesian coverage of AI-hallucination sanctions concerns United States cases.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AI Hallucination Cases database (no Indonesian entries)", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "BANI (Badan Arbitrase Nasional Indonesia) has issued no AI rules or guidance and its 2022 Arbitration Rules are silent on AI. Arbitrator qualification under article 12 of the Arbitration Law (UU 30/1999) is read academically as excluding AI arbitrators.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "guidance", "note": "PERADI's guideline commits the association to encourage continuing education and training so that all members have adequate technology literacy, and AI content is appearing in advocate training (PKPA). There is no mandatory AI CLE requirement.", "documents": [ "id-peradi-pedoman-ai-advokat" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PERADI — AI guideline announcement", "url": "https://peradi.id/peradi-terbitkan-pedoman-etika-ai-pertama-di-indonesia-perkokoh-integritas-advokat-di-era-digital/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor-vetting rules were identified for courts or firms. Komdigi's 2023 circular addresses AI developers and operators generally but not legal-sector procurement.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "PERADI — Pedoman Penggunaan Kecerdasan Buatan bagi Advokat Indonesia (6 Aug 2026, announcement)", "url": "https://peradi.id/peradi-terbitkan-pedoman-etika-ai-pertama-di-indonesia-perkokoh-integritas-advokat-di-era-digital/" }, { "label": "Komdigi — Surat Edaran Menteri No. 9 Tahun 2023 tentang Etika Kecerdasan Artifisial", "url": "https://jdih.komdigi.go.id/produk_hukum/view/id/883/t/surat-edaran-menteri-komunikasi-dan-informatika-nomor-9-tahun-2023" }, { "label": "Mahkamah Agung — letter No. 112/WKMA.Y/HK2.1/IX/2026 and annex (2 Sep 2026)", "url": "https://www.mahkamahagung.go.id/media/14915" }, { "label": "PERADI — Kode Etik Advokat Indonesia (2002, no AI provision)", "url": "https://peradi.or.id/index.php/profil/detail/kode-etik-advokat" } ] }, { "id": "int", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/int", "name": "International bodies", "iso": "INT", "region": "international", "legalSystem": "n/a", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 no international body imposes binding rules on AI in legal practice; the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI is signed but not in force. The field is soft law: CEPEJ's Ethical Charter and generative-AI guidelines, UNESCO's court guidelines, CCBE and IBA practitioner guidance, and arbitration guidance from SVAMC, Ciarb, VIAC and SCC.", "regulators": [ { "name": "European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), Council of Europe", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej/artificial-intelligence-in-justice-systems", "role": "intergovernmental judiciary" }, { "name": "Council of Europe Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Treaty Office", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=225", "role": "intergovernmental" }, { "name": "Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE)", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/ccje", "role": "judicial advisory" }, { "name": "UNESCO (AI and the Rule of Law)", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/artificial-intelligence/rule-law", "role": "intergovernmental" }, { "name": "International Bar Association (IBA)", "url": "https://www.ibanet.org/Artificial-intelligence-hubpage", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE)", "url": "https://www.ccbe.eu/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "UNCITRAL Working Group II (Dispute Settlement)", "url": "https://uncitral.un.org/en/working_groups/2/arbitration", "role": "intergovernmental" }, { "name": "OECD", "url": "https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0449", "role": "intergovernmental" }, { "name": "Silicon Valley Arbitration and Mediation Center (SVAMC)", "url": "https://svamc.org/artificial-intelligence-in-arbitration/", "role": "arbitral body" }, { "name": "Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb)", "url": "https://www.ciarb.org/", "role": "arbitral body" }, { "name": "AAA-ICDR", "url": "https://www.adr.org/", "role": "arbitral institution" }, { "name": "JAMS", "url": "https://www.jamsadr.com/artificial-intelligence-disputes-clause-and-rules", "role": "arbitral institution" }, { "name": "Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC)", "url": "https://www.viac.eu/", "role": "arbitral institution" }, { "name": "SCC Arbitration Institute", "url": "https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/en/resource-library/scc-policies-guides/", "role": "arbitral institution" }, { "name": "London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA)", "url": "https://www.lcia.org/News/lcia-rules-revision-consultation.aspx", "role": "arbitral institution" } ], "jurisdiction": "international", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No international court requires AI certification in filings. Arbitration soft law addresses disclosure: SVAMC Guideline 3 makes disclosure case-by-case; the Ciarb Guideline art. 7 lets tribunals impose continuing disclosure duties; CEPEJ(2025)18 requires transparency where judicial generative-AI use affects proceedings.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "int-svamc-ai-arbitration-guidelines", "int-ciarb-ai-arbitration-guideline" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SVAMC Guidelines (PDF)", "url": "https://svamc.org/wp-content/uploads/SVAMC-AI-Guidelines-First-Edition.pdf" }, { "label": "Ciarb Guideline, updated September 2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.ciarb.org/media/bpndtcgu/guideline-on-the-use-of-ai-in-arbitration_updated-sept-2025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "A consistent soft-law duty to check output: CEPEJ(2025)18 requires outputs to be verified before reliance; the CCBE Guide of 2 October 2025 makes lawyers responsible for checking invented citations; SVAMC Guideline 4 and Ciarb 8.3 require parties and arbitrators to verify AI output; AAA-ICDR tells arbitrators to cross-reference primary sources.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "int-svamc-ai-arbitration-guidelines", "int-ciarb-ai-arbitration-guideline", "int-aaa-icdr-guidance-arbitrators-ai-tools" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CCBE Guide (PDF)", "url": "https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20251002_CCBE-guide-on-the-use-of-the-use-of-generative-AI-for-lawyers.pdf" }, { "label": "CEPEJ(2025)18Final", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2025-18final-en-draft-guidelines-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-for/48802a4ad1" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Two global reference texts: the CEPEJ Guidelines on generative AI for courts, adopted 5 December 2025 for 46 Council of Europe states, and the UNESCO Guidelines for the use of AI systems in courts and tribunals of 3 December 2025. Both sit on the 2018 CEPEJ Ethical Charter and CCJE Opinion No. 26.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "cepej-information-note-generative-ai", "int-unesco-guidelines-ai-courts-tribunals", "int-cepej-european-ethical-charter-ai-judicial-systems", "int-ccje-opinion-26-assistive-technology" ], "sources": [ { "label": "UNESCO announcement", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidelines-use-ai-systems-courts-and-tribunals" }, { "label": "CEPEJ Ethical Charter 2018 (PDF)", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Non-binding but uniform: CEPEJ(2025)18 states judicial power is exclusively for courts and generative-AI output is never binding; UNESCO principles 1.13-1.15 say AI shall not replace judicial decision-making; SVAMC Guideline 6, Ciarb 8.2, VIAC para 2 and the SCC Guide bar arbitrators from delegating decisions.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "int-unesco-guidelines-ai-courts-tribunals", "int-svamc-ai-arbitration-guidelines", "int-ciarb-ai-arbitration-guideline", "int-viac-note-ai-arbitration", "int-scc-guide-ai-arbitration" ], "sources": [ { "label": "VIAC Note on AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.viac.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/VIAC-Note-on-AI-1.pdf" }, { "label": "SCC AI Guide (PDF)", "url": "https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/scc_guide_to_the_use_of_artificial_intelligence_in_cases_administered_under_the_scc_rules-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "int-unesco-guidelines-ai-courts-tribunals" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Arbitration soft law only: SVAMC Guideline 5 asks parties to identify AI-generated material and its limits; Ciarb art. 6 covers admissibility, bias and source-data linkage; VIAC para 6 leaves admissibility and weight to the tribunal; the SCC Guide urges marking of AI-generated content. No international-court evidence rule found.", "documents": [ "int-svamc-ai-arbitration-guidelines", "int-ciarb-ai-arbitration-guideline", "int-viac-note-ai-arbitration", "int-scc-guide-ai-arbitration" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ciarb Guideline (PDF)", "url": "https://www.ciarb.org/media/bpndtcgu/guideline-on-the-use-of-ai-in-arbitration_updated-sept-2025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The CCBE Guide ties professional secrecy to what is entered into tools and where data is processed; CEPEJ(2025)18 bars confidential case data in unsecured tools; SVAMC Guideline 2, Ciarb 2.2, VIAC para 3 and AAA-ICDR apply the same rule to arbitration, barring party names and case specifics without data-protection guarantees.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "int-svamc-ai-arbitration-guidelines", "int-ciarb-ai-arbitration-guideline", "int-viac-note-ai-arbitration", "int-aaa-icdr-guidance-arbitrators-ai-tools" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CCBE Guide (PDF)", "url": "https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20251002_CCBE-guide-on-the-use-of-the-use-of-generative-AI-for-lawyers.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The CCBE Guide requires lawyers to understand tool limitations and flags the EU AI Act article 4 literacy duty; the IBA and CAIDP report recommends AI-literacy programmes; SVAMC Guideline 1, VIAC 4.1 and AAA-ICDR extend competence expectations to arbitration participants. No binding rule exists.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "int-iba-caidp-future-is-now-report", "int-viac-note-ai-arbitration", "int-aaa-icdr-guidance-arbitrators-ai-tools" ], "sources": [ { "label": "IBA/CAIDP report (PDF)", "url": "https://www.ibanet.org/document?id=The-future-is%20now-AI-and-the-legal-profession-report" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Only indirect guidance: the CCBE recommends firm-level AI policies; the IBA and CAIDP report urges ethics rules covering proper supervision and use of AI tools; Ciarb 8.3 tells arbitrators to keep AI output under appropriate supervision. No supervisory duty is framed as a rule.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "int-iba-caidp-future-is-now-report", "int-ciarb-ai-arbitration-guideline" ], "sources": [ { "label": "IBA/CAIDP report (PDF)", "url": "https://www.ibanet.org/document?id=The-future-is%20now-AI-and-the-legal-profession-report" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The IBA and CAIDP report of September 2024 recommends that ethics guidelines include disclosure obligations regarding the use of AI, and the CCBE Guide addresses transparency toward clients as good practice. No international body requires client consent; national bars decide.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "int-iba-caidp-future-is-now-report" ], "sources": [ { "label": "IBA/CAIDP report (PDF)", "url": "https://www.ibanet.org/document?id=The-future-is%20now-AI-and-the-legal-profession-report" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No international guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026. The IBA and CAIDP report only recommends fora on moving from hourly to fixed or value-based fees; it sets no billing rule.", "documents": [ "int-iba-caidp-future-is-now-report" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found at international level as of 4 September 2026; unauthorised-practice regulation is national. The IBA ANLBS guide only surveys national positions.", "documents": [ "int-iba-anlbs-ai-professional-tool-guide" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The CCBE Guide on generative AI for lawyers of 2 October 2025 is the reference for European bars; the IBA and CAIDP report The Future is Now and the IBA ANLBS guide on AI as a professional tool are the global bar-level texts. All are non-binding.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers", "int-iba-caidp-future-is-now-report", "int-iba-anlbs-ai-professional-tool-guide" ], "sources": [ { "label": "IBA/CAIDP report page", "url": "https://www.ibanet.org/IBA-and-CAIDP-release-report-The-Future-is-Now-Artificial-Intelligence-and-the-Legal-Profession" }, { "label": "IBA ANLBS AI guide", "url": "https://www.ibanet.org/PPID/Constituent/Multi-displry_Pract/anlbs-ai-report" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The CEPEJ Ethical Charter of 4 December 2018 and its Assessment Tool, revised 5 June 2025, govern deployment of AI in courts; CEPEJ(2025)18 requires pseudonymised data and public control of infrastructure; the 2025 UNESCO Guidelines add lifecycle monitoring and the capacity to disable systems.", "documents": [ "int-cepej-european-ethical-charter-ai-judicial-systems", "int-cepej-ai-assessment-tool", "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "int-unesco-guidelines-ai-courts-tribunals" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CEPEJ Ethical Charter 2018 (PDF)", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c" }, { "label": "CEPEJ Assessment Tool rev. 2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2023-16rev-operationalisation-ai-ethical-charter-en/1680b65218" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No legal-AI-specific data-protection guidance exists at international level. CEPEJ(2025)18 requires pseudonymisation and judiciary-controlled infrastructure; the ICC Note to Parties of 1 June 2026 reminds tribunals that the GDPR and EU AI Act may apply. CETS 225 article 11 on privacy is not yet in force.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts", "int-coe-framework-convention-ai-cets-225" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals, 1 June 2026 (PDF)", "url": "https://iccwbo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2026/06/2026_ICC_Note-to-Parties-and-AT.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI opened for signature in Vilnius on 5 September 2024; the Treaty Office chart of 3 September 2026 shows 20 signatures without ratification and one ratification by the EU, so it is not in force. The OECD AI Recommendation is non-binding.", "documents": [ "int-coe-framework-convention-ai-cets-225", "int-oecd-recommendation-ai", "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Treaty Office chart of signatures and ratifications, CETS 225", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=225" }, { "label": "OECD Recommendation on AI", "url": "https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/oecd-legal-0449" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No international tribunal has sanctioned AI misuse. Ciarb 7.6-7.7 lets tribunals draw adverse inferences and reflect undisclosed AI use in costs. The only reported challenge is domestic to the United States: LaPaglia v Valve, filed 8 April 2025, alleging an arbitrator outsourced the award to AI; the outcome is unverified.", "documents": [ "int-ciarb-ai-arbitration-guideline" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Aceris Law on LaPaglia v Valve (secondary)", "url": "https://www.acerislaw.com/when-arbitrators-use-ai-lapaglia-v-valve-and-the-boundaries-of-adjudication/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Dense soft law: SVAMC Guidelines of April 2024, the SCC Guide of October 2024, the Ciarb Guideline of March 2025 updated September 2025, the VIAC Note of April 2025, AAA-ICDR arbitrator guidance and the JAMS AI Disputes Rules. The ICC, LCIA, SIAC and HKIAC have no dedicated guidance.", "documents": [ "int-svamc-ai-arbitration-guidelines", "int-scc-guide-ai-arbitration", "int-ciarb-ai-arbitration-guideline", "int-viac-note-ai-arbitration", "int-aaa-icdr-guidance-arbitrators-ai-tools", "int-jams-ai-disputes-rules", "int-lcia-rules-revision-consultation-2026", "int-uncitral-wgii-ai-dispute-resolution-colloquium" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SVAMC Guidelines (PDF)", "url": "https://svamc.org/wp-content/uploads/SVAMC-AI-Guidelines-First-Edition.pdf" }, { "label": "JAMS AI Disputes Clause and Rules", "url": "https://www.jamsadr.com/artificial-intelligence-disputes-clause-and-rules" }, { "label": "LCIA rules revision consultation", "url": "https://www.lcia.org/News/lcia-rules-revision-consultation.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Recommended but never mandatory: the 2025 UNESCO Guidelines tell judicial organisations to run AI training programmes; CCJE Opinion No. 26 says judges must be kept up to date on technology; the IBA and CAIDP report recommends AI-literacy programmes. UNESCO also runs a judges' MOOC.", "documents": [ "int-unesco-guidelines-ai-courts-tribunals", "int-ccje-opinion-26-assistive-technology", "int-iba-caidp-future-is-now-report", "int-unesco-global-toolkit-ai-rule-of-law-judiciary" ], "sources": [ { "label": "UNESCO AI in the courtroom", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ai-courtroom-unescos-new-guidelines-judiciary" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The CEPEJ Assessment Tool gives court decision-makers criteria for evaluating AI tools against the Ethical Charter; the 2025 UNESCO Guidelines recommend procurement standards with risk and rights-impact review; the SCC and VIAC tell participants to do due diligence; AAA-ICDR asks arbitrators to select tools with robust data security.", "documents": [ "int-cepej-ai-assessment-tool", "int-unesco-guidelines-ai-courts-tribunals", "int-scc-guide-ai-arbitration", "int-viac-note-ai-arbitration", "int-aaa-icdr-guidance-arbitrators-ai-tools", "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CEPEJ Assessment Tool rev. 2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2023-16rev-operationalisation-ai-ethical-charter-en/1680b65218" }, { "label": "UNESCO Guidelines (UNESDOC)", "url": "https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000396582" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "CEPEJ Guidelines on the use of generative AI by courts and tribunals", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2025-18final-en-draft-guidelines-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-for/48802a4ad1" }, { "label": "CEPEJ European Ethical Charter on the use of AI in judicial systems", "url": "https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c" }, { "label": "Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI (CETS 225), Treaty Office", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=225" }, { "label": "UNESCO Guidelines for the use of AI systems in courts and tribunals", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidelines-use-ai-systems-courts-and-tribunals" }, { "label": "CCBE Guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers", "url": "https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20251002_CCBE-guide-on-the-use-of-the-use-of-generative-AI-for-lawyers.pdf" }, { "label": "IBA/CAIDP, The Future is Now: AI and the Legal Profession", "url": "https://www.ibanet.org/document?id=The-future-is%20now-AI-and-the-legal-profession-report" }, { "label": "SVAMC Guidelines on the Use of AI in Arbitration", "url": "https://svamc.org/wp-content/uploads/SVAMC-AI-Guidelines-First-Edition.pdf" }, { "label": "Ciarb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration", "url": "https://www.ciarb.org/media/bpndtcgu/guideline-on-the-use-of-ai-in-arbitration_updated-sept-2025.pdf" } ] }, { "id": "ir", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ir", "name": "Iran", "iso": "IR", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "religious-mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Iran has no lawyer or court-specific AI guidance located. The Supreme Council-approved National AI Document and the 2025 National AI Bill/Organisation create a state-led AI governance track, but available sources do not show rules on filings, adjudication, legal ethics or client data.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Iranian Central Bar Association", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "National Artificial Intelligence Organization", "url": "https://en.imna.ir/news/918397/Iran-Establishes-Independent-National-Artificial-Intelligence", "role": "ai-authority" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "National AI sources mention privacy and data governance generally, but no data-protection authority or legal-sector AI data guidance was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AI regulation in Iran: laws & policy (2026)", "url": "https://anuragverma.co/worldwatch/iran/ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Press sources report a National AI Bill/Plan and approval of a National AI Organisation under presidential supervision in 2025; the organisation must draft a statute for Cabinet. No justice/legal-services risk classification was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "IMNA — Iran Establishes Independent National Artificial Intelligence Organization", "url": "https://en.imna.ir/news/918397/Iran-Establishes-Independent-National-Artificial-Intelligence" }, { "label": "TV BRICS — Iran approves creation of national AI organisation", "url": "https://tvbrics.com/en/news/iran-approves-creation-of-national-ai-organisation/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "IMNA — Iran Establishes Independent National Artificial Intelligence Organization", "url": "https://en.imna.ir/news/918397/Iran-Establishes-Independent-National-Artificial-Intelligence" }, { "label": "TV BRICS — Iran approves creation of national AI organisation", "url": "https://tvbrics.com/en/news/iran-approves-creation-of-national-ai-organisation/" }, { "label": "AI regulation in Iran: laws & policy (2026)", "url": "https://anuragverma.co/worldwatch/iran/ai" } ] }, { "id": "iq", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/iq", "name": "Iraq", "iso": "IQ", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Iraq has no court, judiciary or bar rule on AI in legal practice. The Prime Minister-chaired Supreme Committee reviewed the Iraqi National Strategy for AI in August 2024; it remains a national policy effort, with no enacted AI law or data protection authority located.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Judicial Council", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Iraqi Bar Association", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Committee for Artificial Intelligence", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No comprehensive data-protection law, data-protection authority or AI-specific privacy guidance for legal services was located; secondary legal material reports privacy rules remain underdeveloped.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LawGratis — Artificial Intelligence law at Iraq", "url": "https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/artificial-intelligence-law-at-iraq" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Prime Minister-chaired Supreme Committee for AI reviewed the Iraqi National Strategy for AI in August 2024 and government AI projects. The available source describes a strategy, not an enacted AI law or justice-sector risk classification.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Iraq Business News — First Meeting of Iraq Supreme Committee for AI", "url": "https://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2024/08/22/first-meeting-of-iraq-supreme-committee-for-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "The national strategy includes AI education and training programmes generally, but no mandatory AI training or CLE requirement for lawyers or judges was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Iraq Business News — First Meeting of Iraq Supreme Committee for AI", "url": "https://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2024/08/22/first-meeting-of-iraq-supreme-committee-for-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Iraq Business News — First Meeting of Iraq Supreme Committee for AI", "url": "https://www.iraq-businessnews.com/2024/08/22/first-meeting-of-iraq-supreme-committee-for-ai/" }, { "label": "LawGratis — Artificial Intelligence law at Iraq", "url": "https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/artificial-intelligence-law-at-iraq" } ] }, { "id": "ie", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ie", "name": "Ireland", "iso": "IE", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "Ireland moved from guidance to a binding court rule in 2026. High Court Practice Direction HC 142, in operation from 1 September 2026, requires independent human verification of every AI-assisted citation and a no-substantive-use declaration in affidavits and witness statements. The Judicial Council has issued judges' guidelines and the Law Society solicitors' guidance.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Courts Service of Ireland / High Court", "url": "https://www.courts.ie/", "role": "courts" }, { "name": "Judicial Council of Ireland", "url": "https://judicialcouncil.ie/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Law Society of Ireland", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.ie/", "role": "professional body (solicitors)" }, { "name": "Legal Services Regulatory Authority (LSRA)", "url": "https://www.lsra.ie/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Data Protection Commission (DPC)", "url": "https://www.dataprotection.ie/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "ireland", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Practice Direction HC 142 (signed 29 Jul 2026, in operation 1 Sep 2026) requires affidavits and witness statements to carry a declaration that generative AI was not used to generate substantive content, and expert reports either a no-substantive-use declaration or disclosure of AI use. The Court of Appeal in Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48 (26 Mar 2026) had already set out five principles including disclosure of AI use.", "documents": [ "ireland-high-court-pd-hc142-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts Service — Practice Direction HC 142 (official)", "url": "https://www.courts.ie/practice-directions/full-practice-direction?url=practice-direction-on-the-responsible-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-court-documents" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "PD HC 142: every AI-assisted citation or proposition must be independently verified by a human, and checking with another AI tool is expressly insufficient. Reinforced by the Judicial Council guidelines for judges and by the Law Society guidance v4.", "documents": [ "ireland-high-court-pd-hc142-generative-ai", "ireland-judicial-council-generative-ai-guidelines-judges", "law-society-ireland-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Judicial Council of Ireland, 'Guidelines for Judges: The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence', dated June 2024 and published November 2025 as a living document: routine and administrative tasks only, verify all output, no confidential case material in public tools.", "documents": [ "ireland-judicial-council-generative-ai-guidelines-judges" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Judicial Council guidelines: AI must not be used to determine outcomes or draft judicial reasoning. Not a statute or court rule.", "documents": [ "ireland-judicial-council-generative-ai-guidelines-judges" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "binding", "note": "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).", "documents": [ "ireland-high-court-pd-hc142-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48 (courts.ie, official PDF)", "url": "https://www2.courts.ie/view/judgments/da0ff352-10c8-43da-8f24-ff4058366f2d/d9395c85-7585-48dc-8e1f-f21765426a02/2026_IECA_48.pdf/pdf" }, { "label": "Von Geitz v Kelly [2026] IECA 29 (courts.ie, official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/494fb506-aaee-49eb-b7dd-da00b8e56364/c4916450-7a66-4eb1-9d4f-477da28d8ccf/2026_IECA_29.pdf/pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Irish rule on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence. PD HC 142 regulates the preparation of witness statements and expert reports but does not address admissibility of AI-generated material as evidence.", "documents": [ "ireland-high-court-pd-hc142-generative-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society of Ireland guidance v4 (12 Nov 2025): client confidential information must not be entered into tools without adequate safeguards; the guidance lists suitable and unsuitable uses.", "documents": [ "law-society-ireland-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society guidance v4 addresses competence and requires firms to meet the Article 4 EU AI Act literacy obligation for staff.", "documents": [ "law-society-ireland-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No dedicated supervision rule. The Law Society guidance puts responsibility on firms to set the AI literacy and control framework for staff; PD HC 142 makes the person signing the document responsible for verification.", "documents": [ "law-society-ireland-generative-ai-guidance", "ireland-high-court-pd-hc142-generative-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society guidance v4: solicitors should be transparent with clients about material AI use. No consent requirement.", "documents": [ "law-society-ireland-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Irish rule, guidance or reported case on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Solicitors Acts and the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 reserve specified legal activities and are technology-neutral. No Irish ruling or regulation specific to consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society of Ireland, 'Use of Generative AI: Guidance for the Legal Profession', version 4 dated 12 November 2025. No equivalent Bar of Ireland or LSRA document was verified in this pass.", "documents": [ "law-society-ireland-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no published Courts Service policy on institutional AI deployment identified before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no Data Protection Commission guidance specific to AI in legal services was checked in this pass; the GDPR and the DPC's general AI work apply.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly, with Annex III point 8(a) covering judicial-support AI; the Law Society guidance carries the Article 4 literacy duty into practice. Ireland's designation of national competent authorities was not verified against an official instrument in this pass.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "law-society-ireland-generative-ai-guidance", "eu-commission-draft-guidelines-high-risk-classification" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "binding", "note": "PD HC 142 sets out the sanctions expressly: rejection of documents, adverse or personal costs orders, strike-out and referral to the regulator. Before it, the Court of Appeal dismissed both Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48 and Von Geitz v Kelly [2026] IECA 29 on submissions containing non-existent authorities.", "documents": [ "ireland-high-court-pd-hc142-generative-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no Irish arbitral institution AI rule identified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "Article 4 of the EU AI Act binds Irish firms as deployers from 2 Feb 2025 and the Law Society guidance v4 tells firms to address it for staff. No mandatory AI CPD hours.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "law-society-ireland-generative-ai-guidance", "eu-commission-ai-literacy-qa" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society guidance v4 addresses safeguards required before client information enters a tool; no dedicated Irish vendor due-diligence rule found.", "documents": [ "law-society-ireland-generative-ai-guidance", "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Courts Service of Ireland — Practice Direction HC 142 (29 Jul 2026, in operation 1 Sep 2026)", "url": "https://www.courts.ie/practice-directions/full-practice-direction?url=practice-direction-on-the-responsible-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-court-documents" }, { "label": "Judicial Council of Ireland — Guidelines for Judges (June 2024, PDF)", "url": "https://judicialcouncil.ie/assets/uploads/AI%20Guidance%20-%20Guidelines%20For%20Judges%20(June%202024).pdf" }, { "label": "Law Society of Ireland — Use of Generative AI, guidance v4 (12 Nov 2025, PDF)", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.ie/globalassets/documents/cybersecurity/2025-12-generative-ai-guidelines-v4.pdf" }, { "label": "Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48", "url": "https://www2.courts.ie/view/judgments/da0ff352-10c8-43da-8f24-ff4058366f2d/d9395c85-7585-48dc-8e1f-f21765426a02/2026_IECA_48.pdf/pdf" }, { "label": "Von Geitz v Kelly & Ors [2026] IECA 29", "url": "https://www.courts.ie/view/judgments/494fb506-aaee-49eb-b7dd-da00b8e56364/c4916450-7a66-4eb1-9d4f-477da28d8ccf/2026_IECA_29.pdf/pdf" } ] }, { "id": "il", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/il", "name": "Israel", "iso": "IL", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Israel regulates legal AI through professional and judicial instruments, not statute. The Israel Bar's National Ethics Committee opinion At/60/24 (2024) governs lawyers; the Courts Administration's binding Ethical Code for Using AI Tools in the Judicial Authority (Procedure 01-26, 26 Mar 2026) governs judges and staff. Supreme Court decisions supply the sanctions position.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Israel Bar Association [Lishkat Orkhei HaDin]", "url": "https://www.israelbar.org.il/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Courts Administration [Hanhalat Batei HaMishpat], Judicial Authority", "url": "https://www.court.gov.il/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Privacy Protection Authority", "url": "https://www.gov.il/he/departments/the_privacy_protection_authority", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.gov.il/he/departments/ministry_of_justice", "role": "government" } ], "jurisdiction": "israel", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No court rule requires parties to certify AI use. Bar opinion At/60/24 requires a lawyer to tell the court where material was processed solely by AI or where AI-derived information could not be verified. Procedure 01-26 requires disclosure of the courts' own AI use, not parties'.", "documents": [ "israel-bar-ethics-opinion-at-60-24", "israel-courts-ai-ethics-code-01-26" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Israel Bar National Ethics Committee, opinion At/60/24 (official page)", "url": "https://www.israelbar.biz/halishka_vehmechozot/lishkat_orche_din/mosdot_halishka/hamohza_harzit/545.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "At/60/24 requires lawyers to check AI output individually and corroborate it against external authority. Procedure 01-26 binds judges and staff to verify every factual finding, quotation, statutory and case-law reference against authoritative sources. Supreme Court decisions since Feb 2025 have made the duty enforceable through costs.", "documents": [ "israel-bar-ethics-opinion-at-60-24", "israel-courts-ai-ethics-code-01-26" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Israel Bar opinion At/60/24 (official page)", "url": "https://www.israelbar.biz/halishka_vehmechozot/lishkat_orche_din/mosdot_halishka/hamohza_harzit/545.aspx" }, { "label": "CTech, courts AI ethics code and verification requirement (20 Apr 2026)", "url": "https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/bj8k2yqp11e" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Courts Administration Procedure 01-26, 'Ethical Code for Using AI Tools in the Judicial Authority', issued by Director Tzachi Uziel on 26 Mar 2026, drafted by a team under Judge Rami Khaimowitz and approved by Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit. Applies to judges, registrars and court staff; conditions use on training.", "documents": [ "israel-courts-ai-ethics-code-01-26" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Rashut HaRabim law journal, citing Procedure 01-26 (26 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://journal.lawforum.org.il/gruzman-ai/" }, { "label": "CTech report on the code (20 Apr 2026)", "url": "https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/bj8k2yqp11e" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "binding", "note": "Procedure 01-26 states AI is an aid not intended to replace the human element in the court system, and does not diminish judges' and staff members' discretion or responsibility. Automated administrative or registry actions affecting litigants' rights must carry a route of objection.", "documents": [ "israel-courts-ai-ethics-code-01-26" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Bizportal/Takdin, quoting Procedure 01-26", "url": "https://www.bizportal.co.il/takdin/news/article/20029582" }, { "label": "Rashut HaRabim law journal, citing Procedure 01-26", "url": "https://journal.lawforum.org.il/gruzman-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Bizportal/Takdin on scope of Procedure 01-26", "url": "https://www.bizportal.co.il/takdin/news/article/20029582" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or judicial guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026. A Haifa District Court refusal of a partly AI-produced summary of medical records is described in secondary commentary but was not verifiable against a docket.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Calcalist commentary on AI in the justice system (1 Jan 2025)", "url": "https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/ryh11bwolyg" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "At/60/24 bars entering client personal, confidential, privileged or copyright-protected material into AI platforms and prefers closed in-house systems. Procedure 01-26 prohibits entering material from Net HaMishpat case files into AI tools that are not internal to the judiciary.", "documents": [ "israel-bar-ethics-opinion-at-60-24", "israel-courts-ai-ethics-code-01-26", "israel-ppa-draft-ai-privacy-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Israel Bar opinion At/60/24 (official page)", "url": "https://www.israelbar.biz/halishka_vehmechozot/lishkat_orche_din/mosdot_halishka/hamohza_harzit/545.aspx" }, { "label": "Bizportal/Takdin, quoting Procedure 01-26", "url": "https://www.bizportal.co.il/takdin/news/article/20029582" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "At/60/24 expects lawyers to use AI carefully, keep up to date with the strengths and weaknesses of these technologies and understand how the platforms work, and states that the lawyer bears full civil and ethical responsibility for their use. No amendment to the professional conduct rules yet.", "documents": [ "israel-bar-ethics-opinion-at-60-24" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Israel Bar opinion At/60/24 (official page)", "url": "https://www.israelbar.biz/halishka_vehmechozot/lishkat_orche_din/mosdot_halishka/hamohza_harzit/545.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No supervision-specific rule for law firms. At/60/24 places full and non-delegable responsibility on the individual lawyer. Procedure 01-26 establishes control mechanisms over AI use by judicial and administrative staff and conditions use on prior training.", "documents": [ "israel-bar-ethics-opinion-at-60-24", "israel-courts-ai-ethics-code-01-26" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Bizportal/Takdin, quoting Procedure 01-26", "url": "https://www.bizportal.co.il/takdin/news/article/20029582" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "At/60/24 requires explicit written client consent before a client's personal information is entered into open AI systems, specifying the document types involved and the security measures applied. Israel's strictest AI consent requirement, and stricter than most bar guidance worldwide.", "documents": [ "israel-bar-ethics-opinion-at-60-24" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Israel Bar opinion At/60/24 (official page)", "url": "https://www.israelbar.biz/halishka_vehmechozot/lishkat_orche_din/mosdot_halishka/hamohza_harzit/545.aspx" }, { "label": "Pearl Cohen summary of At/60/24", "url": "https://www.pearlcohen.com/israeli-bar-associations-ethical-guidelines-on-using-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026 on charging clients for AI-assisted time or AI tool costs. At/60/24 does not address billing.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026 on consumer-facing AI legal products and the advocacy monopoly under the Bar Association Law 1961.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion At/60/24, the first Israeli bar instrument on generative AI, published 2024 by the National Ethics Committee. In March 2025 Bar president Amit Bechar directed the drafting of detailed permitted/prohibited AI rules; those detailed rules had not been published as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "israel-bar-ethics-opinion-at-60-24" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Israel Bar opinion At/60/24 (official page)", "url": "https://www.israelbar.biz/halishka_vehmechozot/lishkat_orche_din/mosdot_halishka/hamohza_harzit/545.aspx" }, { "label": "Globes, Bar enforcement following the Supreme Court rulings (4 Mar 2025)", "url": "https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001503582" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Procedure 01-26 sets principles, operative instructions and control mechanisms for the judiciary's own AI, requires that use be visible to the public with tailored disclosure rules, and bars non-internal tools for case data. Deployments: AI courtroom transcription from the 2025-26 legal year and 'Chat HaMishpat' (Gemini-based) for roughly 1,650 judges and legal assistants.", "documents": [ "israel-courts-ai-ethics-code-01-26" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Globes, AI systems entering Israeli courtrooms", "url": "https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001519514" }, { "label": "Bizportal/Takdin, quoting Procedure 01-26", "url": "https://www.bizportal.co.il/takdin/news/article/20029582" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Privacy Protection Authority draft guidance on the application of the Privacy Protection Law to AI systems published 30 Apr 2025 (comments to 5 Jun 2025) and still in draft; a Privacy-Enhancing Technologies guide followed in late 2025. Amendment 13 to the Privacy Protection Law took effect in August 2025.", "documents": [ "israel-ppa-draft-ai-privacy-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PPA draft AI guidelines (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/rfp/ai_reg/he/ai%20regu_draft.pdf" }, { "label": "Gornitzky analysis of the PPA AI guidelines", "url": "https://www.gornitzky.com/privacy-in-artificial-intelligence-systems-guidelines-of-the-israeli-privacy-protection-authority/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute or risk-classification law. Policy only: the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology / Ministry of Justice AI regulation and ethics policy (Dec 2023) favours sector-specific regulation, and Government Resolution 4255 of 16 Jun 2026 approved a national AI plan focused on compute, talent and standards rather than a justice-sector risk tier.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Government approval of the National AI Programme (16 Jun 2026)", "url": "https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/israel/2026/06/israel-260616-israel-pm01.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Courts use costs and professional censure. Supreme Court, Justice Gila Canfy-Steinitz, Feb 2025: petition dismissed where counsel cited 36 non-existent or misquoted judgments. Followed by the Ramat Gan, Adibi and Haifa Labour Court sanctions. No dedicated sanctions rule exists.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Jerusalem Post on the Feb 2025 Supreme Court 'phantom rulings' decision", "url": "https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-843442" }, { "label": "law.co.il, Israeli Supreme Court punishes municipality's reckless use of AI (29 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://www.law.co.il/en/news/2026/03/29/israeli-supreme-court-punishes-municipality-reckless-use-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Israeli arbitral institution has issued AI guidance; Israeli practice discussion refers to the SVAMC Guidelines (30 Apr 2024) rather than a domestic instrument.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Norton Rose Fulbright Israel, regulating AI in international arbitration", "url": "https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-il/knowledge/publications/3cb82b55/new-frontiers-regulating-artificial-intelligence-in-international-arbitration" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training requirement for Israeli lawyers found as of 4 September 2026. On the judicial side Procedure 01-26 conditions use of AI tools on appropriate prior training, but that obligation is internal to the judiciary.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Bizportal/Takdin, quoting Procedure 01-26", "url": "https://www.bizportal.co.il/takdin/news/article/20029582" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No procurement rule for firms. At/60/24 directs lawyers towards closed AI systems for internal use to reduce exposure to unauthorised access; Procedure 01-26 confines judicial case data to internal systems. Both are tool-selection principles rather than vendor due-diligence frameworks.", "documents": [ "israel-bar-ethics-opinion-at-60-24", "israel-courts-ai-ethics-code-01-26", "israel-ppa-draft-ai-privacy-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Pearl Cohen summary of At/60/24", "url": "https://www.pearlcohen.com/israeli-bar-associations-ethical-guidelines-on-using-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Israel Bar National Ethics Committee, opinion At/60/24 on AI in lawyers' work", "url": "https://www.israelbar.biz/halishka_vehmechozot/lishkat_orche_din/mosdot_halishka/hamohza_harzit/545.aspx" }, { "label": "Opinion At/60/24, PDF hosted on gov.il", "url": "https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/generalpage/ai_info_law/he/%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%99%20%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%AA%20%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F%20%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A9%20%D7%91%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94%20%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%AA%20%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93%D7%AA%20%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%20%D7%94%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9F%20(2024).pdf" }, { "label": "Rashut HaRabim journal citing Courts Administration Procedure 01-26 (26 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://journal.lawforum.org.il/gruzman-ai/" }, { "label": "CTech on the Courts Administration AI ethics code (20 Apr 2026)", "url": "https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/bj8k2yqp11e" }, { "label": "Globes on the judiciary's AI ethics task force", "url": "https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001516452" }, { "label": "Privacy Protection Authority draft AI guidelines (30 Apr 2025)", "url": "https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/rfp/ai_reg/he/ai%20regu_draft.pdf" } ] }, { "id": "it", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/it", "name": "Italy", "iso": "IT", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Italy is the only country in this group with a statute directly on point: Law 132/2025, in force 10 October 2025, reserves every judicial decision to the judge, puts court AI under Ministry of Justice authorisation, and obliges professionals to inform clients about AI use. Courts have sanctioned hallucinated citations.", "regulators": [ { "name": "National Bar Council (Consiglio Nazionale Forense)", "url": "https://www.consiglionazionaleforense.it/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice (Ministero della Giustizia)", "url": "https://www.giustizia.it/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "High Council of the Judiciary (Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura)", "url": "https://www.csm.it/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Data Protection Authority (Garante per la protezione dei dati personali)", "url": "https://www.garanteprivacy.it/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Agency for Digital Italy (AgID)", "url": "https://www.agid.gov.it/", "role": "AI Act authority" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule or practice direction requires parties to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. Disclosure duties under Law 132/2025 article 13 run to the client, not the court. A Rome Bar operational guideline of February 2026 was reported in the press but could not be opened.", "documents": [ "it-legge-132-2025-intelligenza-artificiale" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "No statutory or bar rule names a verification duty; the courts have set it. Tribunale di Firenze (14 March 2025) censured the failure to verify ChatGPT citations; Tribunale di Siracusa (20 February 2026) treated unverified generative-AI output as gross negligence; the Cassazione declared a petition inadmissible for probable hallucination.", "documents": [ "it-tribunale-firenze-2025-chatgpt-citations", "it-tribunale-siracusa-338-2026-ai-hallucinations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Il Sole 24 Ore NT+ Diritto on Tribunale di Siracusa", "url": "https://ntplusdiritto.ilsole24ore.com/art/quattro-sentenze-fantasma-e-conto-30000-euro-quando-l-utilizzazione-acritica-dell-ia-entra-tribunale-AIW7MlmB" }, { "label": "Litis.it on Tribunale di Firenze", "url": "https://www.litis.it/2025/04/22/chatgpt-in-tribunale-le-allucinazioni-dellia-imbarazzano-un-avvocato-a-firenze/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Law 132/2025 article 15(1): in any use of AI in judicial activity, every decision on interpretation and application of the law, assessment of facts and evidence, and adoption of measures is always reserved to the magistrate. Article 15(4) tasks the Minister of Justice with AI training for magistrates and court staff.", "documents": [ "it-legge-132-2025-intelligenza-artificiale" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legge 23 settembre 2025 n. 132, Gazzetta Ufficiale", "url": "https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2025/09/25/25G00143/sg" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "binding", "note": "Law 132/2025 article 15(1) reserves to the judge all decisions on law, facts, evidence and the adoption of measures, so AI may only assist. Article 14(2) applies the same instrumental and support limit to public administration, with the human remaining solely responsible.", "documents": [ "it-legge-132-2025-intelligenza-artificiale" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legge 132/2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2025/09/25/25G00143/sg" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants on AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No Italy-specific rule. The National Bar Council republished the CCBE guide on generative AI in Italian in November 2025, which covers confidentiality and data entered into tools. Law 132/2025 article 13(1) confines professional AI use to instrumental and support activities.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "it-legge-132-2025-intelligenza-artificiale" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNF Italian edition of the CCBE guide", "url": "https://www.consiglionazionaleforense.it/documents/20182/3593400/Guida+del+CCBE+sull%E2%80%99uso+dell%E2%80%99intelligenza+artificiale+generativa+da+parte+degli+avvocati.pdf/0fdee427-fb50-7e41-fbd6-5bae7acec75c?t=1763380452292" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Codice deontologico forense does not name AI. Law 132/2025 article 13(1) requires the prevalence of the professional's intellectual work; competence expectations otherwise come from the CCBE guide as circulated by the National Bar Council.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "it-legge-132-2025-intelligenza-artificiale" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legge 132/2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2025/09/25/25G00143/sg" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Tribunale di Firenze (14 March 2025) accepted that a trainee had used ChatGPT without the lawyer's knowledge but still censured the signing lawyer's failure to verify; TAR Lombardia in October 2025 referred a lawyer to the Milan bar for discipline. There is no express supervision rule.", "documents": [ "it-tribunale-firenze-2025-chatgpt-citations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Litis.it on Tribunale di Firenze", "url": "https://www.litis.it/2025/04/22/chatgpt-in-tribunale-le-allucinazioni-dellia-imbarazzano-un-avvocato-a-firenze/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "binding", "note": "Law 132/2025 article 13(2): to protect the fiduciary relationship, information on the AI systems used by the professional must be communicated to the client in clear, simple and exhaustive language. The National Bar Council circulated a model client notice to all local bars on 13 October 2025.", "documents": [ "it-legge-132-2025-intelligenza-artificiale", "it-cnf-informativa-ia-art-13" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNF communication with model informativa (official)", "url": "https://www.consiglionazionaleforense.it/documents/20182/0/Comunicazione+ai+COA+-+Schema+informativa+IA.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026. Law 132/2025 article 13 governs AI inside regulated professions, not AI offered directly to the public.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The National Bar Council's official output is the article 13 model client notice of 13 October 2025 and the Italian edition of the CCBE guide published in November 2025; no standalone generative-AI guideline was located. Local bars such as Torre Annunziata and Rome have issued their own guidelines.", "documents": [ "it-cnf-informativa-ia-art-13", "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNF communication with model informativa (official)", "url": "https://www.consiglionazionaleforense.it/documents/20182/0/Comunicazione+ai+COA+-+Schema+informativa+IA.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Law 132/2025 article 15(2)-(3): the Ministry of Justice regulates AI use for court-service organisation and ancillary administration; until the EU AI Act is fully applicable, any experimentation or use of AI in ordinary judicial offices must be authorised by the Ministry after consulting AgID and the national cybersecurity agency.", "documents": [ "it-legge-132-2025-intelligenza-artificiale", "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legge 132/2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2025/09/25/25G00143/sg" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No Garante guidance specific to AI in legal services found as of 4 September 2026; the GDPR and the Garante's general AI enforcement apply. The research budget was exhausted before the Garante site could be checked directly.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act, Annex III point 8 on justice, applies directly. Law 132/2025 is the national framework, requires interpretation in conformity with Regulation 2024/1689, designates AgID and the national cybersecurity agency as national authorities, and delegates further decrees.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "it-legge-132-2025-intelligenza-artificiale" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legge 132/2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2025/09/25/25G00143/sg" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Tribunale di Siracusa judgment 338/2026 applied article 96(3)-(4) of the code of civil procedure for four phantom Cassazione citations, awarding about 30,200 euro in fees, damages and a court-fund payment. Tribunale di Firenze refused sanctions absent bad faith and TAR Lombardia referred counsel to the bar.", "documents": [ "it-tribunale-siracusa-338-2026-ai-hallucinations", "it-tribunale-firenze-2025-chatgpt-citations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Il Sole 24 Ore NT+ on Siracusa", "url": "https://ntplusdiritto.ilsole24ore.com/art/quattro-sentenze-fantasma-e-conto-30000-euro-quando-l-utilizzazione-acritica-dell-ia-entra-tribunale-AIW7MlmB" }, { "label": "Rivista AI case survey", "url": "https://www.rivista.ai/2026/08/26/ai-e-precedenti-giurisprudenziali-inventati-come-la-giurisprudenza-italiana-sta-ridefinendo-la-responsabilita-degli-avvocati/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched because the research budget was exhausted; no Italian arbitral-institution AI rule was identified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "Law 132/2025 article 15(4) obliges the Minister of Justice to promote AI teaching in the training programme for magistrates, covering basic and advanced digital skills and the benefits and risks of AI, and to train administrative staff. There is no mandatory AI training for lawyers.", "documents": [ "it-legge-132-2025-intelligenza-artificiale" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legge 132/2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2025/09/25/25G00143/sg" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "For courts, Ministry of Justice authorisation is required before AI systems are trialled or used in judicial offices under Law 132/2025 article 15(3). For lawyers, only the CCBE guides circulated through the National Bar Council apply; there is no Italian vendor due-diligence rule.", "documents": [ "it-legge-132-2025-intelligenza-artificiale", "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legge 132/2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2025/09/25/25G00143/sg" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Legge 23 settembre 2025 n. 132 (Gazzetta Ufficiale)", "url": "https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2025/09/25/25G00143/sg" }, { "label": "Legge 132/2025 on Normattiva", "url": "https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:2025-09-23;132" }, { "label": "CNF communication and model AI informativa", "url": "https://www.consiglionazionaleforense.it/documents/20182/0/Comunicazione+ai+COA+-+Schema+informativa+IA.pdf" }, { "label": "Il Sole 24 Ore NT+ Diritto: Tribunale di Siracusa 338/2026", "url": "https://ntplusdiritto.ilsole24ore.com/art/quattro-sentenze-fantasma-e-conto-30000-euro-quando-l-utilizzazione-acritica-dell-ia-entra-tribunale-AIW7MlmB" }, { "label": "Litis.it: Tribunale di Firenze order of 14 March 2025", "url": "https://www.litis.it/2025/04/22/chatgpt-in-tribunale-le-allucinazioni-dellia-imbarazzano-un-avvocato-a-firenze/" }, { "label": "Rivista AI: survey of Italian AI-citation cases", "url": "https://www.rivista.ai/2026/08/26/ai-e-precedenti-giurisprudenziali-inventati-come-la-giurisprudenza-italiana-sta-ridefinendo-la-responsabilita-degli-avvocati/" } ] }, { "id": "jm", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/jm", "name": "Jamaica", "iso": "JM", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Jamaica has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the Supreme Court, General Legal Council, Office of the Information Commissioner and government policy materials found no AI filing disclosure, judicial guidance, lawyer ethics opinion or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "General Legal Council of Jamaica", "url": "https://www.generallegalcouncil.org/", "role": "regulator (lawyers)" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Jamaica", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.jm/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Office of the Information Commissioner", "url": "https://oic.gov.jm/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from Jamaica's General Legal Council found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific guidance from the Office of the Information Commissioner relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Jamaica", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.jm/" }, { "label": "General Legal Council of Jamaica", "url": "https://www.generallegalcouncil.org/" }, { "label": "Office of the Information Commissioner", "url": "https://oic.gov.jm/" } ] }, { "id": "jp", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/jp", "name": "Japan", "iso": "JP", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Japan relies on soft law. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations issued members-only guidance on generative AI in September 2025; the Ministry of Justice guideline of August 2023 governs AI contract review under Attorney Act article 72; the AI Promotion Act imposes no binding duties. The Supreme Court is preparing a civil-trial pilot.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Japan Federation of Bar Associations (Nichibenren)", "url": "https://www.nichibenren.or.jp/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Japan", "url": "https://www.courts.go.jp/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.moj.go.jp/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Personal Information Protection Commission", "url": "https://www.ppc.go.jp/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Cabinet Office AI Strategy Headquarters", "url": "https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/ai/ai_act/ai_act.html", "role": "regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule or practice direction requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The JFBA AI Strategy Working Group notice of September 2025, Points of Attention on the Use of Generative AI in Attorney Practice, states that outputs may cite fictitious case law and must be checked against primary sources, and that the attorney bears final responsibility. The text is members-only.", "documents": [ "jp-jfba-generative-ai-notice-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Seminar page quoting the JFBA notice", "url": "https://olga-legal.com/13865/" }, { "label": "Practitioner commentary on the JFBA notice", "url": "https://hidetoshilawoffice.com/column/column-20260627-jfba-ai-guidelines/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published rule for judges' use of generative AI; the Supreme Court states that AI is not currently used in trials. A six-judge study group at the Tokyo and Osaka District Courts worked in early 2026 on the premise that AI will not enter judges' decision-making.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kyodo via Yahoo Japan on the Supreme Court AI study", "url": "https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/18ccb05e6341fdf68f83d05da47c66d500f73f42" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule exists. The Supreme Court's stated design principle for its pilot is that AI assists only with summarising records and issue lists, never with judgment.", "documents": [ "jp-supreme-court-civil-trial-ai-pilot-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Kyodo via Yahoo Japan", "url": "https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/18ccb05e6341fdf68f83d05da47c66d500f73f42" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific or deepfake-specific evidence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The JFBA notice of September 2025 warns against entering client-identifiable or confidential information into external generative-AI services under the duty of confidentiality in Attorney Act article 23. The Personal Information Protection Commission alert of 2 June 2023 cautions all businesses on entering personal data into generative AI.", "documents": [ "jp-jfba-generative-ai-notice-2025", "jp-ppc-generative-ai-caution-2023" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PPC alert on generative AI services (official)", "url": "https://www.ppc.go.jp/news/press/2023/230602kouhou/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No competence rule naming AI or technology found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The JFBA notice of September 2025 is reported to address explaining AI use to clients as part of the attorney's accountability; the text is members-only so the precise wording could not be verified.", "documents": [ "jp-jfba-generative-ai-notice-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Seminar page on the JFBA notice", "url": "https://olga-legal.com/13865/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Ministry of Justice guideline of August 2023 on AI contract-drafting and review services and Attorney Act article 72: a service breaches article 72 only if provided for remuneration, concerning a legal case, and constituting legal affairs. Generative-AI services are judged on the same framework.", "documents": [ "jp-moj-ai-contract-review-attorney-act-72-2023" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ministry of Justice guideline (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001400675.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The JFBA AI Strategy Working Group notice of September 2025 is members-only and covers confidentiality, hallucination, responsibility and client explanation. The Japan Patent Attorneys Association published public AI-use guidelines for patent attorneys in April 2025.", "documents": [ "jp-jfba-generative-ai-notice-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Seminar page on the JFBA notice", "url": "https://olga-legal.com/13865/" }, { "label": "JPAA AI utilisation guidelines (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.jpaa.or.jp/cms/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AIservices-guideline.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Supreme Court announced on 28 August 2026 a budget request for the 2027 financial year, reported at about 60 million yen, for a demonstration using records of settled civil cases to have AI draft record summaries and issue lists, with leak prevention for personal data. No AI is used in trials today.", "documents": [ "jp-supreme-court-civil-trial-ai-pilot-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NHK on the Supreme Court budget request", "url": "https://news.web.nhk/newsweb/na/nd-20260828de46923" }, { "label": "Japan Times", "url": "https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2026/09/01/japan/japan-supreme-court-ai-use/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Personal Information Protection Commission alert of 2 June 2023 on generative AI cautions on entering personal data into prompts and records a notice to OpenAI. It is general rather than legal-sector-specific.", "documents": [ "jp-ppc-generative-ai-caution-2023" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PPC alert (official)", "url": "https://www.ppc.go.jp/news/press/2023/230602kouhou/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Act on Promotion of Research, Development and Utilisation of AI-Related Technology, Law No. 53 of 2025, promulgated 4 June 2025 and fully in force 1 September 2025, is a framework statute creating the AI Strategy Headquarters and a basic plan, with no risk classification, penalties or justice-sector provisions.", "documents": [ "jp-ai-promotion-act-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Cabinet Office page on the AI Act (official)", "url": "https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/ai/ai_act/ai_act.html" }, { "label": "e-Gov law text", "url": "https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/507AC0000000053" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported Japanese court sanction for AI-fabricated citations found as of 4 September 2026; Japanese coverage concerns foreign cases.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No Japan Commercial Arbitration Association or other institutional AI rule found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "JCAA rules page", "url": "https://www.jcaa.or.jp/arbitration/rules.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No vendor due-diligence guidance for legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "JFBA notice on generative AI in attorney practice (via seminar page)", "url": "https://olga-legal.com/13865/" }, { "label": "Ministry of Justice guideline on AI contract services and Attorney Act art. 72", "url": "https://www.moj.go.jp/content/001400675.pdf" }, { "label": "AI Promotion Act, Cabinet Office page", "url": "https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/ai/ai_act/ai_act.html" }, { "label": "PPC alert on generative AI", "url": "https://www.ppc.go.jp/news/press/2023/230602kouhou/" }, { "label": "NHK: Supreme Court to budget for a generative-AI system", "url": "https://news.web.nhk/newsweb/na/nd-20260828de46923" } ] }, { "id": "jo", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/jo", "name": "Jordan", "iso": "JO", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Jordan has no court, judiciary or bar rule on AI in legal practice. Its 2020 AI Policy, 2022 AI ethics charter and 2023-2027 AI Strategy are government soft-law instruments for public/private AI adoption; the 2023 Personal Data Protection Law applies generally, not as legal-sector AI guidance.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Jordan Bar Association", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Ministry of Digital Economy and Entrepreneurship", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "Jordan’s AI strategy targets public-sector AI projects generally, but no Ministry of Justice or Judicial Council policy on courts’ own AI deployment was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Watch — Jordanian AI Strategy and Implementation Plan 2023-2027", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/jordanian-artificial-intelligence-strategy-and-implementation-plan-2023-2027" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The 2023 Personal Data Protection Law applies generally, but no data-protection authority or MoDEE guidance applying it specifically to AI in legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LawGratis — Artificial Intelligence law at Jordan", "url": "https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/artificial-intelligence-law-at-jordan" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Jordan’s AI Policy 2020 and AI Strategy 2023-2027 are MoDEE-led soft-law instruments covering governance, legislative review, ethics, risk assessment, regulatory sandboxes and public-sector AI projects. They do not classify justice or legal services as high-risk.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Watch — Jordan Artificial Intelligence Policy", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/jordan-artificial-intelligence-policy" }, { "label": "Digital Watch — Jordanian AI Strategy and Implementation Plan 2023-2027", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/jordanian-artificial-intelligence-strategy-and-implementation-plan-2023-2027" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Watch — Jordan Artificial Intelligence Policy", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/jordan-artificial-intelligence-policy" }, { "label": "Digital Watch — Jordanian AI Strategy and Implementation Plan 2023-2027", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/jordanian-artificial-intelligence-strategy-and-implementation-plan-2023-2027" }, { "label": "LawGratis — Artificial Intelligence law at Jordan", "url": "https://www.lawgratis.com/blog-detail/artificial-intelligence-law-at-jordan" } ] }, { "id": "kz", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/kz", "name": "Kazakhstan", "iso": "KZ", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Kazakhstan has a binding 2025 Law On Artificial Intelligence, in force from January 2026, with definitions, risk classification, transparency, user-information, documentation and audit concepts. No bar, court-filing, judicial-use or hallucinated-citation sanction rule for legal practice was located.", "regulators": [ { "name": "National Bar Association of Kazakhstan", "url": "https://advokatura.kz/en", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Kazakhstan", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Development", "url": "https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/mdai?lang=en", "role": "ai-regulator" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/adilet?lang=en", "role": "ministry" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "The AI Law requires marking of synthetic AI outputs, but no rule on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated evidence in Kazakh courts was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Adilet — Law of Kazakhstan On Artificial Intelligence No. 230-VIII", "url": "https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2500000230" }, { "label": "Legal 500 — Kazakhstan Law No. 230-VIII On Artificial Intelligence adopted", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/developments/press-releases/the-law-of-the-republic-of-kazakhstan-dated-november-17-2025-no-230-viii-on-artificial-intelligence-was-adopted/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "binding", "note": "The AI Law requires users to receive information about automated processing and its consequences when AI decisions affect their rights, and requires notice when AI systems are used in services.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Adilet — Law of Kazakhstan On Artificial Intelligence No. 230-VIII", "url": "https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2500000230" }, { "label": "Legal 500 — Kazakhstan Law No. 230-VIII On Artificial Intelligence adopted", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/developments/press-releases/the-law-of-the-republic-of-kazakhstan-dated-november-17-2025-no-230-viii-on-artificial-intelligence-was-adopted/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "The 2025 AI Law includes data protection and confidentiality as regulatory principles and gives users rights to information about automated processing affecting their rights. It is economy-wide, not legal-sector specific.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Adilet — Law of Kazakhstan On Artificial Intelligence No. 230-VIII", "url": "https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2500000230" }, { "label": "Legal 500 — Kazakhstan Law No. 230-VIII On Artificial Intelligence adopted", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/developments/press-releases/the-law-of-the-republic-of-kazakhstan-dated-november-17-2025-no-230-viii-on-artificial-intelligence-was-adopted/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "Kazakhstan adopted Law No. 230-VIII On Artificial Intelligence on 17 November 2025. It defines AI systems, classifies systems by risk, sets transparency duties and assigns oversight to the AI and Digital Development ministry.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Adilet — Law of Kazakhstan On Artificial Intelligence No. 230-VIII", "url": "https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2500000230" }, { "label": "Legal 500 — Kazakhstan Law No. 230-VIII On Artificial Intelligence adopted", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/developments/press-releases/the-law-of-the-republic-of-kazakhstan-dated-november-17-2025-no-230-viii-on-artificial-intelligence-was-adopted/" }, { "label": "Ministry of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Development", "url": "https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/mdai?lang=en" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "Trusted lists, documentation and audits for high-risk AI systems exist under the AI Law, but no legal-sector procurement or vendor due-diligence rule was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Adilet — Law of Kazakhstan On Artificial Intelligence No. 230-VIII", "url": "https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2500000230" }, { "label": "Legal 500 — Kazakhstan Law No. 230-VIII On Artificial Intelligence adopted", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/developments/press-releases/the-law-of-the-republic-of-kazakhstan-dated-november-17-2025-no-230-viii-on-artificial-intelligence-was-adopted/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Adilet — Law of Kazakhstan On Artificial Intelligence No. 230-VIII", "url": "https://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z2500000230" }, { "label": "Legal 500 — Kazakhstan Law No. 230-VIII On Artificial Intelligence adopted", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/developments/press-releases/the-law-of-the-republic-of-kazakhstan-dated-november-17-2025-no-230-viii-on-artificial-intelligence-was-adopted/" }, { "label": "Ministry of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Development", "url": "https://www.gov.kz/memleket/entities/mdai?lang=en" } ] }, { "id": "ke", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ke", "name": "Kenya", "iso": "KE", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Kenya's position on AI in legal practice is set by judges, not rulebooks. The High Court struck out AI-drafted pleadings in March 2026 and set aside a judgment built on them in April 2026. A draft Judiciary AI Policy is in consultation; the Law Society has issued no guidance.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Judiciary of Kenya", "url": "https://judiciary.go.ke/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Law Society of Kenya (LSK)", "url": "https://lsk.or.ke/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Office of the Data Protection Commissioner (ODPC)", "url": "https://www.odpc.go.ke/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of Information, Communications and the Digital Economy", "url": "https://ict.go.ke/", "role": "government" }, { "name": "Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (NCIA)", "url": "https://ncia.or.ke/", "role": "arbitration" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Judiciary's draft AI Policy and draft Practice Directions, released for public participation in May 2026, would require any AI-assisted filing to carry a certificate of human verification and would require advocates to disclose use of mid-tier tools such as legal research platforms. Not in force; not published on judiciary.go.ke.", "documents": [ "ke-judiciary-draft-ai-policy", "ke-hc-savla-ai-pleadings-rulings" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary to introduce AI policy amid concerns of bot-generated filings (Daily Nation)", "url": "https://nation.africa/kenya/news/judiciary-to-introduce-ai-policy-amid-concerns-of-bot-generated-filings--5475558" }, { "label": "Judiciary moves to regulate AI use in courtrooms (Techweez, 15 May 2026)", "url": "https://techweez.com/2026/05/15/kenya-judiciary-ai-policy/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "No rule, but the courts have set the position. Mwamuye J (Milimani High Court, Mar 2026) held computer-generated documents or outputs of artificial intelligence cannot substitute for human-drawn documents; Chigiti J (16 Apr 2026) set aside a judgment founded on AI-generated pleadings. Supreme Court Justice Lenaola warned in May 2025 that every authority in one submission was fictitious.", "documents": [ "ke-judiciary-draft-ai-policy", "ke-hc-savla-ai-pleadings-rulings" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Milimani court strikes out AI-generated application (Capital FM, 11 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://capitalfm.africa/milimani-high-court-ai-generated-documents-struck-out/" }, { "label": "High Court declares AI-drafted pleadings illegal (HapaKenya, 19 Apr 2026)", "url": "https://hapakenya.com/2026/04/19/high-court-declares-that-legal-pleadings-drafted-by-ai-are-illegal-in-kenya/" }, { "label": "Justice Lenaola warns lawyers over fake AI references (Capital News, May 2025)", "url": "https://www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/2025/05/justice-lenaola-warns-lawyers-against-using-ai-in-court-submissions-citing-fake-references/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Judiciary announced on 11 Aug 2025 that it is developing a Judiciary Artificial Intelligence Adoption Policy Framework to guide AI in judicial operations while safeguarding judicial independence, data privacy and due process. Draft policy and practice directions went to public participation in May 2026; nothing is in force.", "documents": [ "ke-judiciary-draft-ai-policy" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary to leverage AI to enhance justice (Judiciary of Kenya, 11 Aug 2025)", "url": "https://judiciary.go.ke/judiciary-to-leverage-ai-to-enhance-justice/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The draft Judiciary AI Policy reportedly maintains a boundary between administrative automation and adjudicative discretion, treating AI as decision support and not a decision-maker, with mandatory human oversight and audits for bail-assessment and predictive-sentencing tools. Draft only.", "documents": [ "ke-judiciary-draft-ai-policy" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary moves to regulate AI use in courtrooms (Techweez, 15 May 2026)", "url": "https://techweez.com/2026/05/15/kenya-judiciary-ai-policy/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "case-law", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "ke-hc-savla-ai-pleadings-rulings" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Milimani court strikes out AI-generated application (Capital FM, 11 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://capitalfm.africa/milimani-high-court-ai-generated-documents-struck-out/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "The Law Society of Kenya has published no guidance restricting client data in AI tools. A site search of lsk.or.ke on 4 September 2026 returned no AI guidance document.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use. The draft Judiciary policy addresses disclosure to the court, not to clients.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "The LSK has formed an ICT and AI Committee to guide adoption and training under President Charles Kanjama, and speakers at the 2026 LSK Annual Conference urged it to make AI rules including mandatory disclosure, but no LSK guidance document exists as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LSK Legal Tech and Innovation Week (LSK official)", "url": "https://lsk.or.ke/lsk-legal-tech-innovation-week/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Judiciary is piloting AI transcription of proceedings and says the forthcoming AI Adoption Policy Framework will cover case management, legal research, predictive analytics and administrative support. No published policy governs these deployments yet.", "documents": [ "ke-judiciary-draft-ai-policy" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary to leverage AI to enhance justice (Judiciary of Kenya, 11 Aug 2025)", "url": "https://judiciary.go.ke/judiciary-to-leverage-ai-to-enhance-justice/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The Data Protection Act 2019 applies generally, including rights against solely automated decisions, but the ODPC has issued no AI-specific guidance note. Its published guidance-note list (checked 4 September 2026) covers DPOs, sectors, DPIAs, consent and biometrics only.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ODPC guidelines and guidance notes (official index)", "url": "https://www.odpc.go.ke/guidelines-2/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Artificial Intelligence Bill 2026 (Senate Bills No. 4 of 2025), published 19 Feb 2026, creates an Artificial Intelligence Commissioner and four risk tiers; high risk covers healthcare, education, agriculture, finance, security, employment and public administration, but does not name courts, justice or legal services. Kenya's AI Strategy 2025-2030 (27 Mar 2025) is non-binding.", "documents": [ "ke-artificial-intelligence-bill-2026", "ke-national-ai-strategy-2025-2030" ], "sources": [ { "label": "The Artificial Intelligence Bill, 2026 (Kenya Law, official)", "url": "https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/bill/senate/2026-02-19/the-artificial-intelligence-bill-2026/eng@2026-02-19" }, { "label": "Kenya Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025-2030 (official PDF)", "url": "https://ict.go.ke/sites/default/files/2025-03/Kenya%20AI%20Strategy%202025%20-%202030.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "In the 16 Apr 2026 ruling the High Court set aside the 23 Dec 2025 judgment and struck out the AI-founded application with costs against the applicant. The March 2026 ruling struck out the filing without costs sanction. No disciplinary proceedings against an advocate for AI misuse were found.", "documents": [ "ke-hc-savla-ai-pleadings-rulings" ], "sources": [ { "label": "High Court declares AI-drafted pleadings illegal (HapaKenya, 19 Apr 2026)", "url": "https://hapakenya.com/2026/04/19/high-court-declares-that-legal-pleadings-drafted-by-ai-are-illegal-in-kenya/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "The Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration has hosted an AI-in-arbitration webinar but has issued no institutional rules or guidelines on AI. Checked 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training. The LSK ICT and AI Committee proposes upskilling; no Council of Legal Education or Kenya School of Law AI requirement was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary to leverage AI to enhance justice (Judiciary of Kenya official, 11 Aug 2025)", "url": "https://judiciary.go.ke/judiciary-to-leverage-ai-to-enhance-justice/" }, { "label": "The Artificial Intelligence Bill, 2026 (Kenya Law official)", "url": "https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/bill/senate/2026-02-19/the-artificial-intelligence-bill-2026/eng@2026-02-19" }, { "label": "Kenya Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2025-2030 (Ministry of ICT official PDF)", "url": "https://ict.go.ke/sites/default/files/2025-03/Kenya%20AI%20Strategy%202025%20-%202030.pdf" }, { "label": "Commission on Administrative Justice v Savla [2026] KEHC 5485 (KLR) (16 April 2026) (Kenya Law index entry)", "url": "https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5485/eng@2026-04-16" }, { "label": "Savla v Commission on Administrative Justice [2025] KEHC 19318 (KLR) (23 December 2025) — the judgment later set aside", "url": "https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2025/19318/eng@2025-12-23" }, { "label": "Milimani court strikes out AI-generated application (Capital FM, 11 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://capitalfm.africa/milimani-high-court-ai-generated-documents-struck-out/" }, { "label": "Judiciary to introduce AI policy amid concerns of bot-generated filings (Daily Nation)", "url": "https://nation.africa/kenya/news/judiciary-to-introduce-ai-policy-amid-concerns-of-bot-generated-filings--5475558" } ] }, { "id": "kw", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/kw", "name": "Kuwait", "iso": "KW", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Kuwait has no AI statute, no AI-specific regulator and no rule, judicial guidance or bar rule on AI in legal practice. CITRA's 2021 Data Privacy Protection Regulation applies indirectly; a draft National AI Strategy 2025-2028 is not in force. The Ministry of Justice is digitising litigation without any published AI policy.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Communication and Information Technology Regulatory Authority (CITRA)", "url": "https://www.citra.gov.kw/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.kw/", "role": "ministry" } ], "jurisdiction": "gulf", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Neither the Court of Cassation nor the Ministry of Justice has imposed a duty to verify AI-generated citations.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No guidance from the Supreme Judicial Council or the Ministry of Justice on judges' or court staff's use of AI was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Kuwait Bar Association has published no restriction on client data in AI tools.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Kuwait Bar Association hosted a conference with the French Embassy on AI, law and the role of lawyers in October 2024 but has published no guidance for practitioners.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kuwait Times — Kuwait Lawyers Association holds AI conference (secondary)", "url": "https://kuwaittimes.com/article/19865/kuwait/other-news/kuwait-lawyers-association-holds-ai-conference/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Ministry of Justice launched the first phase of electronic litigation for criminal orders in July 2026 and an official electronic seal, but no AI component or AI policy is published; the ministry website contains no AI reference.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kuwait Ministry of Justice (checked)", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.kw/EN/Pages/default.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "CITRA's Data Privacy Protection Regulation (2021) binds providers of communication and IT services and governs personal data used in AI systems by extension. Sources differ on the implementing resolution number and a 2024 update is reported; no AI-specific CITRA guidance and nothing addressed to legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kuwait Data Privacy Protection Regulation — US Chamber submission (secondary)", "url": "https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/US-Chamber_Kuwait-DPPR-Submission-8.16.2021.pdf" }, { "label": "CITRA", "url": "https://www.citra.gov.kw/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Kuwait has no AI statute and no risk-classification instrument. A draft National AI Strategy 2025-2028 aligned with Vision 2035 is public but non-binding and not adopted; CITRA announced an action-oriented approach to AI governance in February 2025 without issuing a rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Digital Watch Observatory — The Kuwait National AI Strategy (2025-2028) draft (secondary)", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/the-kuwait-national-ai-strategy-2025-2028-draft" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Kuwaiti decision sanctioning a lawyer for AI-fabricated citations was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory requirement as of 4 September 2026. Kuwait Bar Association AI events are voluntary awareness activities.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Communication and Information Technology Regulatory Authority (CITRA)", "url": "https://www.citra.gov.kw/" }, { "label": "Kuwait Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.kw/EN/Pages/default.aspx" }, { "label": "Digital Watch Observatory — The Kuwait National AI Strategy (2025-2028), draft", "url": "https://dig.watch/resource/the-kuwait-national-ai-strategy-2025-2028-draft" }, { "label": "Kuwait Data Privacy Protection Regulation — US Chamber of Commerce submission (2021)", "url": "https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/US-Chamber_Kuwait-DPPR-Submission-8.16.2021.pdf" }, { "label": "Kuwait Times — Kuwait Lawyers Association holds AI conference (October 2024)", "url": "https://kuwaittimes.com/article/19865/kuwait/other-news/kuwait-lawyers-association-holds-ai-conference/" } ] }, { "id": "kg", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/kg", "name": "Kyrgyzstan", "iso": "KG", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Kyrgyzstan has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the Supreme Court, Advokatura, justice and data-protection materials found no AI filing disclosure rule, judicial-use guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, sanction case or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic", "url": "https://sot.kg/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Advokatura of the Kyrgyz Republic", "url": "https://advokatura.kg/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "role": "legal information" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Advokatura of the Kyrgyz Republic found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Kyrgyzstan has a personal-data law; no AI-specific data-protection guidance relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Kyrgyzstan", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=KG" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatura of the Kyrgyz Republic", "url": "https://advokatura.kg/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Kyrgyzstan", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=KG" } ] }, { "id": "la", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/la", "name": "Laos", "iso": "LA", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Laos has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of court, justice, bar, data-protection and digital-government sources found no AI filing disclosure rule, judicial-use policy, lawyer ethics guidance, legal-AI sanction or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "People's Supreme Court of Laos", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "role": "justice ministry" }, { "name": "Ministry of Technology and Communications", "role": "digital regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific guidance from a data-protection authority relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [] }, { "id": "lv", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/lv", "name": "Latvia", "iso": "LV", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Latvia has no profession-specific AI rule or guidance for legal practice as of 4 September 2026. The Latvian Collegium of Sworn Advocates' internal normative acts comprise only its statutes, the 2019 Ethics Code and its complaints procedure; none addresses AI. The EU AI Act applies directly, with Annex III obligations deferred to 2027.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Latvian Collegium of Sworn Advocates and its Council [Latvijas Zvērinātu advokātu kolēģija / Latvijas Zvērinātu advokātu padome]", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lv/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Disciplinary Cases Commission of the Bar [Disciplinārlietu komisija]", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lv/lv/par-mums/komisijas", "role": "disciplinary" }, { "name": "Court Administration [Tiesu administrācija]", "url": "https://www.ta.gov.lv/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Latvia [Augstākā tiesa]", "url": "https://www.at.gov.lv/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Data State Inspectorate [Datu valsts inspekcija, DVI]", "url": "https://www.dvi.gov.lv/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Latvian court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings; the Civil Procedure Law is silent and neither Tiesu administrācija nor the Supreme Court publishes an AI direction as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tiesu administrācija", "url": "https://www.ta.gov.lv/lv" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance imposing an explicit duty to verify AI output or citations found. The Collegium's Ethics Code (2019) predates generative AI and does not mention it.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LZAK — internal normative acts index", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lv/lv/dokumenti/ieksejie-normativie-akti" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "Neither the Court Administration nor the Supreme Court publishes guidance for judges or court staff on generative AI as of 4 September 2026. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Latvia as a Council of Europe state but is non-binding.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Augstākā tiesa", "url": "https://www.at.gov.lv/lv" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No Latvian instrument expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning; the position rests on judicial independence and the Law on Judicial Power rather than an AI-specific rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "Advocate secrecy under the Advocacy Law and the 2019 Ethics Code applies generally, but no rule or guidance restricting client data entered into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LZAK — Ethics Code and internal acts", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lv/lv/dokumenti/ieksejie-normativie-akti" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "EU AI Act Art. 4 AI-literacy duty applies directly to Latvian law firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025. No domestic competence rule naming AI or technology was found.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No duty on supervising advocates or law offices over AI-assisted work by assistants or staff found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients of or obtain consent for AI use in legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Latvian rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "Court representation is reserved to sworn advocates in most proceedings, but no ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "The Collegium's published internal normative acts are limited to its 2022 statutes, the 2019 Ethics Code and the Council's complaints procedure. No generative-AI guidance, circular or code amendment was published as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LZAK — Iekšējie normatīvie akti", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lv/lv/dokumenti/ieksejie-normativie-akti" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Tiesu administrācija operates Latvia's court information systems and e-file, but no published policy on institutional AI deployment (transcription, triage, translation) was located during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tiesu administrācija", "url": "https://www.ta.gov.lv/lv" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Whether Datu valsts inspekcija has issued generative-AI guidance could not be determined; its site surfaced no AI section during research and could not be searched.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Datu valsts inspekcija", "url": "https://www.dvi.gov.lv/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "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. Latvia's national supplementary law and designated supervisory authorities could not be verified.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2026/1744", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj/eng" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No reported Latvian court sanction or Disciplinary Cases Commission decision over hallucinated citations was located, but Latvian case and disciplinary databases could not be searched during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Whether any Latvian arbitration court on the register has adopted an AI rule could not be checked during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "No Latvian CLE requirement names AI. The AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty applies to firms as deployers from 2 Feb 2025; the Collegium has published no AI training programme.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on procuring or contracting legal AI tools (security, training data, residency) found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Latvijas Zvērinātu advokātu kolēģija — Iekšējie normatīvie akti", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lv/lv/dokumenti/ieksejie-normativie-akti" }, { "label": "Latvijas Zvērinātu advokātu kolēģija — homepage", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lv/" }, { "label": "Augstākā tiesa (Supreme Court of Latvia)", "url": "https://www.at.gov.lv/lv" }, { "label": "Tiesu administrācija (Court Administration)", "url": "https://www.ta.gov.lv/lv" }, { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ] }, { "id": "lb", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/lb", "name": "Lebanon", "iso": "LB", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Lebanon has no court rule, judicial guidance or bar guidance on AI in legal practice. The Lebanese University’s Faculty of Law published 2025 governance and ethics guidelines proposing AI principles and a future authority, but no government AI law, court protocol or legal-profession rule was located.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Beirut Bar Association", "url": "https://bba.org.lb/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.lb/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Lebanese University Faculty of Law, Political and Administrative Sciences", "url": "https://ul.edu.lb/en/lebanese-university-publishes-%E2%80%9Cguidelines-governance-and-ethics-ai-lebanon%E2%80%9D", "role": "academic/public guidance" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI guidance from the Beirut or Tripoli bar associations was found. The 2025 Lebanese University guidelines are academic/public-sector AI governance guidance, not bar guidance.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lebanese University — Guidelines on governance and ethics of AI in Lebanon", "url": "https://ul.edu.lb/en/lebanese-university-publishes-%E2%80%9Cguidelines-governance-and-ethics-ai-lebanon%E2%80%9D" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Lebanon’s personal-data rules are general; no data-protection authority or bar guidance applying them specifically to legal AI was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "The Lebanese University Faculty of Law’s 2025 AI governance and ethics guidelines propose principles and a national AI authority, but no government AI strategy, bill, law or risk-classification instrument was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lebanese University — Guidelines on governance and ethics of AI in Lebanon", "url": "https://ul.edu.lb/en/lebanese-university-publishes-%E2%80%9Cguidelines-governance-and-ethics-ai-lebanon%E2%80%9D" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Lebanese University — Guidelines on governance and ethics of AI in Lebanon", "url": "https://ul.edu.lb/en/lebanese-university-publishes-%E2%80%9Cguidelines-governance-and-ethics-ai-lebanon%E2%80%9D" }, { "label": "Beirut Bar Association", "url": "https://bba.org.lb/" }, { "label": "Lebanon Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.lb/" } ] }, { "id": "lt", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/lt", "name": "Lithuania", "iso": "LT", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "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.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Lithuanian Bar Association [Lietuvos advokatūra]", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lt/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Court of Honour of Advocates [Advokatų garbės teismas]", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lt/savivalda/", "role": "disciplinary" }, { "name": "National Courts Administration [Nacionalinė teismų administracija]", "url": "https://www.teismai.lt/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Communications Regulatory Authority [Ryšių reguliavimo tarnyba, RRT]", "url": "https://rrt.lt/veiklos-sritys/skaitmenine-erdve/di-informacija", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "State Data Protection Inspectorate [Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija, VDAI]", "url": "https://vdai.lrv.lt/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Teismai.lt", "url": "https://www.teismai.lt/lt/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lietuvos advokatūra — AI training announcement (1 Sept 2026)", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lt/naujienos/rugsejo-9-diena-mokymai-tema-di-advokato-praktikoje-galimybes-irankiai-ir-saugus-naudojimas1/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Teismai.lt", "url": "https://www.teismai.lt/lt/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lietuvos advokatūra — self-governance legal acts", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lt/savivalda/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients of or obtain consent for AI use in legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Lithuanian rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lietuvos advokatūra — committee meetings and news", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lt/" }, { "label": "Lietuvos advokatūra — committees", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lt/savivalda/komitetai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The National Courts Administration operates Lithuania's LITEKO court information system, but no published policy on institutional AI deployment was located during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Teismai.lt", "url": "https://www.teismai.lt/lt/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Whether VDAI has issued generative-AI guidance could not be determined; its site could not be searched during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Valstybinė duomenų apsaugos inspekcija", "url": "https://vdai.lrv.lt/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "RRT — AI Act information (Dirbtinio intelekto akto priežiūra)", "url": "https://rrt.lt/veiklos-sritys/skaitmenine-erdve/di-informacija" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Whether the Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration has issued an AI note or rule could not be checked during research.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "lt-advokatura-ai-training-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Lietuvos advokatūra — 9 Sept 2026 AI training", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lt/naujienos/rugsejo-9-diena-mokymai-tema-di-advokato-praktikoje-galimybes-irankiai-ir-saugus-naudojimas1/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on procuring or contracting legal AI tools (security, training data, residency) published as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Lietuvos advokatūra — AI training, 9 September 2026", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lt/naujienos/rugsejo-9-diena-mokymai-tema-di-advokato-praktikoje-galimybes-irankiai-ir-saugus-naudojimas1/" }, { "label": "Lietuvos advokatūra — committees (incl. IT and AI Committee)", "url": "https://www.advokatura.lt/savivalda/komitetai/" }, { "label": "RRT — Dirbtinio intelekto akto priežiūra / DI informacija", "url": "https://rrt.lt/veiklos-sritys/skaitmenine-erdve/di-informacija" }, { "label": "Teismai.lt (National Courts Administration)", "url": "https://www.teismai.lt/lt/" }, { "label": "EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act)", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ] }, { "id": "lu", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/lu", "name": "Luxembourg", "iso": "LU", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Luxembourg has no domestic rule, court practice direction or bar guidance on AI in legal practice that could be verified. The Luxembourg Bar is a CCBE member and the CCBE generative-AI guide of 2 October 2025 is the operative reference; several categories are marked unclear rather than empty.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Luxembourg Bar (Ordre des Avocats du Barreau de Luxembourg)", "url": "https://www.barreau.lu/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Data Protection Authority (Commission nationale pour la protection des données, CNPD)", "url": "https://cnpd.public.lu/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Judiciary (Justice — Grand Duchy of Luxembourg)", "url": "https://justice.public.lu/", "role": "judiciary" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Luxembourg court rule or practice direction on AI disclosure in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No Luxembourg instrument. The CCBE guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers (2 Oct 2025), which the Luxembourg Bar subscribes to as a CCBE member, requires output — including invented citations — to be checked.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no guidance from the Luxembourg judiciary located before the search budget was exhausted. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies as Council of Europe soft law.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No Luxembourg rule found as of 4 September 2026; the EU AI Act (Annex III point 8(a)) and art. 22 GDPR apply.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No Luxembourg court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Luxembourg evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No Luxembourg instrument; the secret professionnel under art. 35 of the loi du 10 août 1991 sur la profession d'avocat applies. The CCBE guide supplies the practical rules on what may enter a tool.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No Luxembourg rule naming AI. The CCBE guide requires lawyers to understand tool limitations.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No Luxembourg supervision rule for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No Luxembourg requirement to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Luxembourg rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No Luxembourg ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Luxembourg Bar website (barreau.lu) returned an error page throughout this research pass, so the absence of bar guidance could not be confirmed. Treat as unchecked. The Bar is a CCBE member and the CCBE guide of 2 Oct 2025 and technical guide of 27 Mar 2026 are the default references.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no published Luxembourg policy on institutional court AI deployment identified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The CNPD maintains thematic dossiers 'Intelligence artificielle et protection des données: une introduction' and 'La régulation de l'intelligence artificielle: AI Act', plus articles on prohibited AI systems and on how organisations keep AI under control. Nothing specific to legal services.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CNPD — dossier thématique Intelligence artificielle (official)", "url": "https://cnpd.public.lu/fr/dossiers-thematiques/intelligence-artificielle.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly, including Annex III point 8(a). Luxembourg's designation of national competent and market-surveillance authorities could not be verified against an official instrument in this pass.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNPD — La régulation de l'intelligence artificielle: AI Act (official)", "url": "https://cnpd.public.lu/fr/dossiers-thematiques/intelligence-artificielle/regulation-ia.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported Luxembourg court or disciplinary decision on hallucinated AI citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "Article 4 of the EU AI Act binds Luxembourg firms as deployers from 2 Feb 2025. No Luxembourg mandatory AI CLE found.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-ai-literacy-qa" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No Luxembourg rule; the CCBE technical guide on AI tools and models for lawyers (27 Mar 2026) is the reference for deployment-model and vendor assessment.", "documents": [ "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "CNPD — dossier thématique Intelligence artificielle", "url": "https://cnpd.public.lu/fr/dossiers-thematiques/intelligence-artificielle.html" }, { "label": "CNPD — La régulation de l'intelligence artificielle: AI Act", "url": "https://cnpd.public.lu/fr/dossiers-thematiques/intelligence-artificielle/regulation-ia.html" }, { "label": "CCBE — Guide on the use of generative AI by lawyers (2 Oct 2025)", "url": "https://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/speciality_distribution/public/documents/IT_LAW/ITL_Guides_recommendations/EN_ITL_20251002_CCBE-guide-on-the-use-of-the-use-of-generative-AI-for-lawyers.pdf" } ] }, { "id": "mo", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/mo", "name": "Macao", "iso": "MO", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Macao has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the courts, lawyers association, Legislative Assembly, government portal and personal-data materials found no AI court rule, judicial guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, sanction case or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Macao SAR Courts", "url": "https://www.court.gov.mo/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Macau Lawyers Association", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Office", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Macao has a personal-data protection law; no AI-specific data-protection guidance for legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Macau SAR", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=MO" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No Macao AI Act-style statute or justice/legal risk classification was verified; mainland China AI measures were not treated as Macao law.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Macao SAR Courts", "url": "https://www.court.gov.mo/" }, { "label": "Macao Government Portal", "url": "https://www.gov.mo/en/" }, { "label": "Legislative Assembly of Macao", "url": "https://www.al.gov.mo/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Macau SAR", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=MO" } ] }, { "id": "my", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/my", "name": "Malaysia", "iso": "MY", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "Malaysia regulates legal AI entirely through the profession, not the courts. The Malaysian Bar issued Circular 342/2023 on ChatGPT risks and Circular 242/2025 with an annexed generative-AI advisory; the judiciary has issued no practice direction, though Sabah and Sarawak have run AI-assisted sentencing since 2020. An AI Governance Bill was consulted on in mid-2026 but not introduced.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Office of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court of Malaysia", "url": "https://www.kehakiman.gov.my/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Malaysian Bar and Bar Council [Badan Peguam Malaysia / Majlis Peguam]", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Department [Jabatan Perlindungan Data Peribadi, JPDP]", "url": "https://www.pdp.gov.my/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "National AI Office (NAIO), Ministry of Digital", "url": "https://ai.gov.my/", "role": "government" }, { "name": "Legal Affairs Division, Prime Minister's Department [BHEUU]", "url": "https://www.bheuu.gov.my/", "role": "government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Malaysian court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings. A site search of the Chief Registrar's judiciary portal for artificial intelligence, AI and kecerdasan returned no results as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Office of the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court — site search (no results)", "url": "https://www.kehakiman.gov.my/en/search/node?keys=artificial%20intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Bar Council Circular 242/2025 requires all generative-AI output to be independently verified against traditional legal databases, and says that where verification is not possible the content must not be relied on. It is professional guidance, not a binding rule.", "documents": [ "my-bar-circular-242-2025-generative-ai", "my-bar-council-circular-342-2023-chatgpt" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 with annexed advisory (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20242-2025.pdf" }, { "label": "Bar Council — Circular No. 342/2023 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20342-2023.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No federal guideline for judges. The Judiciary of Sabah and Sarawak operates AI for Data Sentencing, launched 18 January 2020 and first used on 19 February 2020 at the Kota Kinabalu Magistrates' Court, on the stated basis that AI does not displace the role of judges.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary of Sabah and Sarawak — Artificial Intelligence (AI for Data Sentencing)", "url": "https://ekss-portal.kehakiman.gov.my/portals/web/home/article_view/0/5/1" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No Malaysian rule bars AI from adjudicative reasoning or judgment drafting. The only official position is the Sabah and Sarawak Judiciary's statement, accompanying its sentencing tool, that AI does not displace the role of judges.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary of Sabah and Sarawak — AI for Data Sentencing", "url": "https://ekss-portal.kehakiman.gov.my/portals/web/home/article_view/0/5/1" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No Malaysian court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found on the judiciary portal as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Office of the Chief Registrar — site search (no results)", "url": "https://www.kehakiman.gov.my/en/search/node?keys=artificial%20intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific or deepfake evidence rule. Section 90A of the Evidence Act 1950 on computer-produced documents is unamended for AI. Caution: the Attorney General's Chambers statute portal is JavaScript-driven and the section text could not be opened, so the statutory position is inferred rather than read.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Laws of Malaysia portal (AGC)", "url": "https://lom.agc.gov.my/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Circular 242/2025 tells practitioners not to input personal data, NRIC or financial data or client-specific facts into generative-AI tools, to redact before use, not to disclose privileged material, and to comply with the Personal Data Protection Act 2010.", "documents": [ "my-bar-circular-242-2025-generative-ai", "my-bar-council-circular-342-2023-chatgpt" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20242-2025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No amendment to the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978 naming AI. Circular 242/2025 requires practitioners to understand a tool's capabilities and limits, read its terms of use, and train staff.", "documents": [ "my-bar-circular-242-2025-generative-ai", "my-bar-council-circular-342-2023-chatgpt" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20242-2025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Circular 242/2025 requires all generative-AI output to be subject to human oversight, legal judgment and ethical consideration, and asks firms to keep clear records of professional oversight and final review for audit purposes.", "documents": [ "my-bar-circular-242-2025-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20242-2025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No duty to tell clients about AI use in legal work. The only transparency requirement comes through data protection: JPDP's Automated Decision-Making and Profiling Guideline requires data subjects to be informed of AI use in automated decision-making and profiling through the privacy notice.", "documents": [ "my-jpdp-admp-guideline" ], "sources": [ { "label": "JPDP — Garis Panduan Pembuatan Keputusan Secara Automatik dan Pemprofilan (ADMP)", "url": "https://www.pdp.gov.my/ppdpv1/akta/garis-panduan-pembuatan-keputusan-secara-automatik-dan-pemprofilan-admp/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Malaysian rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work. Circular 242/2025 mentions automated billing only as an example of a task AI can perform.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20242-2025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Circular 242/2025 names unauthorised practice of law as a generative-AI risk and says AI must not substitute for trained legal minds, but no official determination applying section 37 of the Legal Profession Act 1976 to AI products was located.", "documents": [ "my-bar-circular-242-2025-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20242-2025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Two circulars. Circular 342/2023 (24 November 2023) on the risks and precautions of ChatGPT in the profession, and Circular 242/2025 (3 July 2025), which annexes an advisory setting out recommended and prohibited uses, a nine-risk mitigation table and a four-R framework.", "documents": [ "my-bar-circular-242-2025-generative-ai", "my-bar-council-circular-342-2023-chatgpt" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20242-2025.pdf" }, { "label": "Bar Council — Circular No. 342/2023 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20342-2023.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Malaysia was an early adopter: the Sabah and Sarawak Judiciary's AI for Data Sentencing tool for drug and theft offences, built by SAINS, launched 18 January 2020. The Legal Affairs Division leads an AI Legal Justice Roadmap 2025-2026 involving seven agencies including the Chief Registrar's Office and the AIAC.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary of Sabah and Sarawak — AI for Data Sentencing", "url": "https://ekss-portal.kehakiman.gov.my/portals/web/home/article_view/0/5/1" }, { "label": "BHEUU PetaRI — AI Legal Justice Roadmap entry", "url": "https://petari.bheuu.gov.my/ruu-ombudsman-2025-20/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (Act 709) as amended in 2024 applies. JPDP issued Automated Decision-Making and Profiling, DPIA and Data Protection by Design guidelines in April 2026; the ADMP guideline's Part E governs AI and generative AI in profiling, requiring human oversight, barring sole-factor automated decisions and mandating staff training and appointed reviewers.", "documents": [ "my-jpdp-admp-guideline" ], "sources": [ { "label": "JPDP — ADMP Guideline (official PDF, 2026)", "url": "https://www.pdp.gov.my/ppdpv1/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/GARIS-PANDUAN-PEMBUATAN-KEPUTUSAN-SECARA-AUTOMATIK-DAN-PEMPROFILAN-ADMP-1.pdf" }, { "label": "JPDP — guidelines index", "url": "https://www.pdp.gov.my/ppdpv1/akta/garis-panduan-ms/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The National AI Office and Ministry of Digital ran a public consultation on a proposed AI Governance Bill from 10 July to 1 August 2026, at pre-drafting stage; no bill has been introduced. Existing soft law: the National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (MOSTI, 2024) and the National AI Action Plan 2026-2030. Justice uses are not separately risk-classified.", "documents": [ "my-naio-ai-governance-bill-consultation", "my-mosti-national-guidelines-ai-governance-ethics" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Unified Public Consultation — proposed AI Governance Bill (10 Jul to 1 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://upc.mpc.gov.my/view-consultation/264" }, { "label": "MOSTI — National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.mosti.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/NATIONAL-GUIDELINES-OF-AIGE-20241118.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Malaysian decision sanctioning a lawyer for fabricated AI citations was found as of 4 September 2026; the Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database (2,009 decisions across 41 jurisdictions, updated 3 September 2026) contains no Malaysian entry. Chief Justice Wan Ahmad Farid has warned publicly against AI over-reliance but issued no directive.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AI Hallucination Cases database (no Malaysian entries)", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "The AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026, i-Arbitration Rules 2026 and Asian Sports Arbitration Rules 2026 were full-text searched and contain no reference to artificial intelligence, generative AI or machine learning. The AIAC is a participating agency in the AI Legal Justice Roadmap.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Asian International Arbitration Centre — arbitration rules", "url": "https://www.aiac.world/Arbitration-Arbitration" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or CPD requirement. Circular 242/2025 only encourages firms to conduct regular training on generative AI and its risks.", "documents": [ "my-bar-circular-242-2025-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20242-2025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Circular 242/2025 tells firms to read terms of use to learn whether inputs are retained or used for training, to prefer legal-sector tools with privacy and regulatory controls, and to adopt internal policies. JPDP's ADMP guideline requires measures against over-reliance when developing, supplying or using AI systems.", "documents": [ "my-bar-circular-242-2025-generative-ai", "my-jpdp-admp-guideline" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20242-2025.pdf" }, { "label": "JPDP — ADMP Guideline (PDF)", "url": "https://www.pdp.gov.my/ppdpv1/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/GARIS-PANDUAN-PEMBUATAN-KEPUTUSAN-SECARA-AUTOMATIK-DAN-PEMPROFILAN-ADMP-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Malaysian Bar — Circular No. 242/2025, updates on the use of generative AI in legal practice (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20242-2025.pdf" }, { "label": "Bar Council Malaysia — Circular No. 342/2023, risks and precautions in using generative AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/cms/upload_files/document/Circular%20No%20342-2023.pdf" }, { "label": "Judiciary of Sabah and Sarawak — AI for Data Sentencing", "url": "https://ekss-portal.kehakiman.gov.my/portals/web/home/article_view/0/5/1" }, { "label": "JPDP — ADMP Guideline under the PDPA 2010 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.pdp.gov.my/ppdpv1/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/GARIS-PANDUAN-PEMBUATAN-KEPUTUSAN-SECARA-AUTOMATIK-DAN-PEMPROFILAN-ADMP-1.pdf" }, { "label": "Unified Public Consultation — proposed AI Governance Bill", "url": "https://upc.mpc.gov.my/view-consultation/264" }, { "label": "MOSTI — National Guidelines on AI Governance and Ethics (PDF)", "url": "https://www.mosti.gov.my/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/NATIONAL-GUIDELINES-OF-AIGE-20241118.pdf" } ] }, { "id": "mt", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/mt", "name": "Malta", "iso": "MT", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Malta has transposed the EU AI Act's institutional framework through the Artificial Intelligence Regulations effective 10 October 2025, with the Malta Digital Innovation Authority as market-surveillance authority, but neither the Chamber of Advocates nor the Committee for Advocates and Legal Procurators has issued AI guidance, and no court rule or decision on AI was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Chamber of Advocates", "url": "https://www.avukati.org/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Committee for Advocates and Legal Procurators", "url": "https://justice.gov.mt/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Malta Digital Innovation Authority (MDIA)", "url": "https://www.mdia.gov.mt/", "role": "AI Act authority" }, { "name": "Information and Data Protection Commissioner", "url": "https://idpc.org.mt/", "role": "data protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026; practitioners reportedly look to United Kingdom Bar Council guidance.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal 500 Malta AI chapter (secondary)", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/malta-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judicial guidance on judges' use of AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No national rule; EU AI Act Annex III point 8 applies. The Artificial Intelligence Regulations require magistrate authorisation for law-enforcement post-remote biometric identification, not for adjudication.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "mt-artificial-intelligence-regulations-sl-591-05" ], "sources": [ { "label": "LexMT Malta AI regulation guide (secondary)", "url": "https://lex.mt/articles/malta-ai-regulation-guide" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "Legal 500 notes that generative AI's effect on privilege and professional secrecy is unaddressed by Maltese guidance as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal 500 Malta AI chapter (secondary)", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/malta-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific competence rule found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "Neither the Chamber of Advocates nor the Committee for Advocates and Legal Procurators has issued AI guidance as of 4 September 2026, though Legal 500 expects it soon.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal 500 Malta AI chapter (secondary)", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/malta-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "A reported court AI pilot could not be located. Malta's recovery-fund justice digitalisation, due in mid-2026, lists virtual sittings and case management rather than AI; government AI pilots cover other sectors.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "European Commission recovery-fund project page", "url": "https://reforms-investments.ec.europa.eu/projects/digitalisation-civil-proceedings-and-criminal-judicial-acts_en" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The Information and Data Protection Commissioner holds AI Act supervisory powers for certain high-risk and prohibited uses, but no guidance specific to legal AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "INPLP Malta 2025 legal review (secondary)", "url": "https://inplp.com/latest-news/article/malta-at-the-intersection-of-it-law-data-protection-and-artificial-intelligence-a-2025-legal-review/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Artificial Intelligence Regulations, Subsidiary Legislation 591.05, in force 10 October 2025 with most operative provisions from 2 August 2026: the Malta Digital Innovation Authority is market-surveillance authority, notifying authority, single contact point and sandbox operator, with appeals to the Administrative Review Tribunal.", "documents": [ "mt-artificial-intelligence-regulations-sl-591-05", "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "S.L. 591.05 on Legizlazzjoni Malta (official)", "url": "https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/591.5/eng" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Maltese decision on AI-generated or hallucinated content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched; the Malta Arbitration Centre was not checked because the research budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector vendor guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Artificial Intelligence Regulations, S.L. 591.05 (Legizlazzjoni Malta)", "url": "https://legislation.mt/eli/sl/591.5/eng" }, { "label": "Legal 500 Malta: Artificial Intelligence chapter", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/malta-artificial-intelligence/" }, { "label": "LexMT: Malta AI regulation guide", "url": "https://lex.mt/articles/malta-ai-regulation-guide" }, { "label": "INPLP: Malta IT law, data protection and AI 2025 review", "url": "https://inplp.com/latest-news/article/malta-at-the-intersection-of-it-law-data-protection-and-artificial-intelligence-a-2025-legal-review/" } ] }, { "id": "mu", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/mu", "name": "Mauritius", "iso": "MU", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Mauritius has no court rule, judicial protocol or Mauritius Bar Association guidance on AI in legal practice. The government launched a National AI Strategy and FAIR Guidelines on 10 April 2026, and the Data Protection Office has an AI guidance note; neither is legal-sector specific.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Mauritius Bar Association", "url": "https://mauritiusbarassociation.com/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Mauritius", "url": "https://supremecourt.govmu.org/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Data Protection Office", "url": "https://dataprotection.govmu.org/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Artificial Intelligence Unit", "url": "https://aim.govmu.org/aim/", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "The government announced a DIVA virtual assistant for public services, but no Supreme Court or judiciary policy on courts’ own AI deployment was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "MITCI — National AI Strategy and FAIR Guidelines launch", "url": "https://mitci.govmu.org/mitci/national-ai-strategy-and-fair-guidelines-unveiled-to-position-mauritius-as-a-high-tech-innovation-driven-economy/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Data Protection Office has an official publication titled “Artificial Intelligence, Human Intervention and Trust” applying data-protection concepts to AI processing; no legal-sector-specific guidance was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Mauritius Data Protection Office — Artificial Intelligence, Human Intervention and Trust (PDF)", "url": "https://dataprotection.govmu.org/Documents/Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Ministry launched the National AI Strategy and FAIR Guidelines on 10 April 2026 as a comprehensive framework for ethical, transparent and effective AI adoption. They are non-binding and not legal-sector specific.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "MITCI — National AI Strategy and FAIR Guidelines launch", "url": "https://mitci.govmu.org/mitci/national-ai-strategy-and-fair-guidelines-unveiled-to-position-mauritius-as-a-high-tech-innovation-driven-economy/" }, { "label": "Artificial Intelligence Unit — National AI Strategy portal", "url": "https://aim.govmu.org/aim/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "MITCI — National AI Strategy and FAIR Guidelines launch", "url": "https://mitci.govmu.org/mitci/national-ai-strategy-and-fair-guidelines-unveiled-to-position-mauritius-as-a-high-tech-innovation-driven-economy/" }, { "label": "Artificial Intelligence Unit — National AI Strategy portal", "url": "https://aim.govmu.org/aim/" }, { "label": "Mauritius Data Protection Office — Artificial Intelligence, Human Intervention and Trust (PDF)", "url": "https://dataprotection.govmu.org/Documents/Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf" }, { "label": "Mauritius Bar Association", "url": "https://mauritiusbarassociation.com/" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of Mauritius", "url": "https://supremecourt.govmu.org/" } ] }, { "id": "mx", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/mx", "name": "Mexico", "iso": "MX", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Mexico has no AI statute, no federal judicial AI framework and no bar guidance on legal AI. The only judicial position comes from federal collegiate-court criteria published on 22 August 2025, holding that AI is an auxiliary tool and that deliberation and decision must remain with the judge.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation [Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación]", "url": "https://www.scjn.gob.mx/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Federal Judiciary Administration Body [Órgano de Administración Judicial] (successor to the Consejo de la Judicatura Federal for administrative matters)", "url": "https://www.cjf.gob.mx/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Mexican Bar, College of Lawyers [Barra Mexicana, Colegio de Abogados]", "url": "https://www.bma.org.mx/", "role": "bar" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in Mexican court filings found as of 4 September 2026, at federal level or in the state judiciaries examined.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No express duty to verify AI output before filing has been imposed on parties or counsel. The 2025 collegiate-court criteria impose human supervision on judges, not a filing-verification duty on litigants.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Criteria of the Second Collegiate Court in Civil Matters of the Second Circuit, published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación on 22 August 2025, accept AI as a support tool in adjudication subject to self-restraint, proportionality and non-harm, data protection, transparency and explainability, and human judicial supervision. No SCJN or Órgano de Administración Judicial guidelines exist.", "documents": [ "mx-collegiate-court-ai-judicial-criteria-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "El Mundo del Derecho — SCJN criteria on ethical AI use in judicial proceedings (secondary; official Semanario record not opened)", "url": "https://elmundodelderecho.com/scjn-fija-lineamientos-para-uso-etico-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-procesos-judiciales/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The same August 2025 criteria hold that technology operates as an auxiliary and not as a substitute, and that deliberation and the final decision remain strictly within the jurisdictional sphere of the judge or magistrate. There is no statutory or regulatory prohibition.", "documents": [ "mx-collegiate-court-ai-judicial-criteria-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "El Mundo del Derecho — SCJN criteria on ethical AI use in judicial proceedings (secondary)", "url": "https://elmundodelderecho.com/scjn-fija-lineamientos-para-uso-etico-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-procesos-judiciales/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct guidance on client data in AI tools. Mexico has no compulsory bar; the legal profession is licensed through the Dirección General de Profesiones and bar codes of ethics bind only voluntary members, so no regulator has issued binding AI confidentiality rules.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No technological-competence rule naming AI found in Mexican professional regulation as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervision of AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients of, or obtain consent for, AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal services found as of 4 September 2026. Because legal practice is licensed by professional title rather than by a mandatory bar, there is no regulator with a standing unauthorised-practice enforcement function comparable to a common-law bar.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Barra Mexicana, Colegio de Abogados or any other Mexican bar association found as of 4 September 2026; the Barra offers a paid diploma course on generative AI ethics for lawyers but has published no guidance document.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Barra Mexicana, Colegio de Abogados (site checked 2026-09-04)", "url": "https://www.bma.org.mx/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The SCJN operates a public virtual assistant, JusticIA, over its own published materials, and individual federal and state judges have deployed AI in case preparation, but no published institutional AI policy was located; official SCJN and CJF sources could not be opened during this pass.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No data-protection authority guidance addressed to AI in legal services found as of 4 September 2026. General personal-data legislation applies; supervision was reorganised after the 2024-2025 constitutional reform abolished INAI.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No AI statute is in force. A Senate draft General Law to Regulate and Promote AI was not put to a vote before the ordinary period closed in April 2026; a National Law to Regulate the Use of AI was introduced on 11 February 2026 and a Federal Law for the Ethical, Sovereign and Inclusive Development of AI in the Chamber of Deputies on 24 July 2026. None classifies justice-sector uses.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Infobae — Senate commission drives AI regulation initiative (30 Apr 2026)", "url": "https://www.infobae.com/mexico/2026/04/30/desde-comision-del-senado-impulsan-iniciativa-de-ley-para-regular-el-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-mexico/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No reported Mexican decision sanctioning fabricated AI citations was located, but search coverage of Mexican case law was limited in this pass; treat as not established rather than absent.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No Mexican arbitral or mediation institution rule or guideline on AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "Mexico has no mandatory continuing legal education, so there is no mandatory AI training requirement.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on due diligence for legal AI procurement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "El Mundo del Derecho — SCJN criteria on ethical AI use in judicial proceedings (22 Aug 2025 Semanario publication)", "url": "https://elmundodelderecho.com/scjn-fija-lineamientos-para-uso-etico-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-procesos-judiciales/" }, { "label": "Foro Jurídico — Nueva judicatura e Inteligencia Artificial (11 Feb 2025: no Mexican judicial AI framework exists)", "url": "https://forojuridico.mx/nueva-judicatura-e-inteligencia-artificial/" }, { "label": "Infobae — Senate AI regulation initiative (30 Apr 2026)", "url": "https://www.infobae.com/mexico/2026/04/30/desde-comision-del-senado-impulsan-iniciativa-de-ley-para-regular-el-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-mexico/" }, { "label": "Barra Mexicana, Colegio de Abogados", "url": "https://www.bma.org.mx/" } ] }, { "id": "md", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/md", "name": "Moldova", "iso": "MD", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Moldova has no binding AI law or legal-practice AI rule located. Its main instruments are the 2024 White Paper on Data Governance and AI, the Sub-Council on AI and Data Governance, and a 2026-2030 National AI Program reported in consultation.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Union of Lawyers of the Republic of Moldova", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice", "url": "https://www.csj.md/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Centre for Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://datepersonale.md/en/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of Economic Development and Digitalisation", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The NCPDP is Moldova's data-protection authority, and the White Paper includes data privacy as an AI requirement. No AI-specific NCPDP guidance for legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CSO Meter — Moldova White Paper on AI and Data Governance", "url": "https://csometer.info/updates/moldova-first-policy-framework-document-artificial-intelligence-and-data-governance" }, { "label": "National Centre for Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://datepersonale.md/en/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The 2024 White Paper on Data Governance and AI sets non-binding AI requirements, including human agency, transparency, safety, accountability and data privacy. A 2026-2030 National AI Program was in consultation in 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CSO Meter — Moldova White Paper on AI and Data Governance", "url": "https://csometer.info/updates/moldova-first-policy-framework-document-artificial-intelligence-and-data-governance" }, { "label": "Particip.gov.md — White Paper consultation", "url": "https://particip.gov.md/ro/document/stages/cartea-alba-privind-guvernanta-datelor-si-inteligenta-artificiala/12066" }, { "label": "Logos Press — Moldova National AI Program consultations", "url": "https://logos-pres.md/en/news/moldova-wants-to-move-from-consuming-technology-to-building-its-own-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "CSO Meter — Moldova White Paper on AI and Data Governance", "url": "https://csometer.info/updates/moldova-first-policy-framework-document-artificial-intelligence-and-data-governance" }, { "label": "Particip.gov.md — White Paper consultation", "url": "https://particip.gov.md/ro/document/stages/cartea-alba-privind-guvernanta-datelor-si-inteligenta-artificiala/12066" }, { "label": "Logos Press — Moldova National AI Program consultations", "url": "https://logos-pres.md/en/news/moldova-wants-to-move-from-consuming-technology-to-building-its-own-ai/" }, { "label": "National Centre for Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://datepersonale.md/en/" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of Justice of Moldova", "url": "https://www.csj.md/" } ] }, { "id": "mn", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/mn", "name": "Mongolia", "iso": "MN", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Mongolia has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the Supreme Court, Mongolian Bar Association, legal-information portal and data-protection materials found no AI court rule, judicial-use guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, legal-AI sanction or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Mongolia", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.mn/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Mongolian Bar Association", "url": "https://www.mglbar.mn/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "LegalInfo Mongolia", "url": "https://legalinfo.mn/", "role": "legal information" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Mongolian Bar Association found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Mongolia has a 2022 personal-data law; no AI-specific data-protection guidance for legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Mongolia", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=MN" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Mongolia", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.mn/" }, { "label": "Mongolian Bar Association", "url": "https://www.mglbar.mn/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Mongolia", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=MN" } ] }, { "id": "me", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/me", "name": "Montenegro", "iso": "ME", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Montenegro has no AI-specific law, court rule, bar guidance or legal-practice AI case located. A National AI Strategy 2026-2030 is under development by a ministry-led working group, while current AI issues are handled through general data, contract, liability and sectoral law.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Bar Association of Montenegro", "url": "https://advokatskakomora.me/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court / Judicial portal", "url": "https://sudovi.me/vrhs", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information", "url": "https://www.azlp.me/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of Public Administration", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Montenegro's data-protection law applies generally. Schoenherr reported the data-protection agency had not officially addressed AI privacy concerns; no legal-sector AI guidance was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Schoenherr — AI regulation and development in Montenegro", "url": "https://www.schoenherr.eu/content/the-status-and-future-prospects-of-ai-regulation-and-development-in-montenegro" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection Laws of the World — Montenegro", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=ME" }, { "label": "Montenegro Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information", "url": "https://www.azlp.me/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Montenegro lacks specific AI law or strategy in force. A National AI Strategy 2026-2030 is being developed by a Ministry of Public Administration working group with UNDP support.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Schoenherr — AI regulation and development in Montenegro", "url": "https://www.schoenherr.eu/content/the-status-and-future-prospects-of-ai-regulation-and-development-in-montenegro" }, { "label": "NCC Montenegro — National AI Strategy 2026-2030 working group", "url": "https://eurocc.udg.edu.me/2026/03/30/ncc-montenegro-contributes-to-the-development-of-the-national-ai-strategy-2026-2030/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Schoenherr — AI regulation and development in Montenegro", "url": "https://www.schoenherr.eu/content/the-status-and-future-prospects-of-ai-regulation-and-development-in-montenegro" }, { "label": "NCC Montenegro — National AI Strategy 2026-2030 working group", "url": "https://eurocc.udg.edu.me/2026/03/30/ncc-montenegro-contributes-to-the-development-of-the-national-ai-strategy-2026-2030/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection Laws of the World — Montenegro", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=ME" }, { "label": "Montenegro Agency for Personal Data Protection and Free Access to Information", "url": "https://www.azlp.me/" }, { "label": "Bar Association of Montenegro", "url": "https://advokatskakomora.me/" } ] }, { "id": "ma", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ma", "name": "Morocco", "iso": "MA", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Morocco has no binding or advisory rule on AI in legal practice. The Higher Council of the Judicial Power hosted the Arab and African region's first UNESCO consultation on AI in courts (Rabat, 22 September 2025). The CNDP has stated AI processing falls under Law 09-08 and is preparing a deliberation.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Higher Council of the Judicial Power [Conseil Supérieur du Pouvoir Judiciaire, CSPJ]", "url": "https://www.cspj.ma/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Commission for the Control of Personal Data Protection [Commission Nationale de Contrôle de la Protection des Données à Caractère Personnel, CNDP]", "url": "https://www.cndp.ma/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Neither the Cour de cassation nor the Ministry of Justice has imposed a duty to verify AI-generated citations.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The CSPJ and UNESCO's Maghreb Office held the region's first consultation on UNESCO's guidelines for AI use in courts and tribunals in Rabat on 22 September 2025, under the principle that an AI cannot decide or judge. No Moroccan judicial guidance has been adopted.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "UNESCO — IA et droit: la première consultation au Maroc (official)", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/fr/articles/ia-et-droit-la-premiere-consultation-au-maroc-sur-son-utilisation" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The September 2025 CSPJ-UNESCO consultation adopted the guiding statement that decision-making remains the magistrate's responsibility, but this is not an adopted rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "UNESCO — IA et droit: la première consultation au Maroc", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/fr/articles/ia-et-droit-la-premiere-consultation-au-maroc-sur-son-utilisation" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The CNDP has invoked article 447-2 of the Penal Code to require labelling of AI-generated political content, but no evidence or authentication rule for AI material in litigation was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No bar or CNDP restriction on entering client data into AI tools was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Moroccan code of professional conduct for lawyers does not name technology or AI competence.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No AI charter or guidance from the Association des Barreaux du Maroc was located; a private association of digital-law practitioners (APDND) launched in Casablanca in April 2026 but is not a regulator.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Morocco's e-justice / justice numérique digitisation programme is well established, but no published policy on the courts' own use of AI was located; the CSPJ website was unreachable from outside Morocco during checks.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CNDP press release of 18 March 2025 states that AI processing of personal data is governed by Law 09-08, that automated decisions require integrity, transparency, fairness and legibility plus a route of recourse, and that work on a deliberation on AI processing has begun with stakeholder hearings. No AI deliberation adopted.", "documents": [ "ma-cndp-communique-ai-personal-data" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNDP — Communiqué de presse: IA et protection des données (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.cndp.ma/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CNDP-Communique-IA-et-protection-des-donnees-a-caractere-personnel-FR.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "A framework law known as 'Digital X.0', covering AI, data governance, digital identity and interoperability, was presented by the Minister Delegate for Digital Transition in November 2025 and is with the Secretariat General of the Government. No official text is public and no justice-sector classification is reported.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Ecofin Agency — Morocco advances with Digital X.0 law (secondary)", "url": "https://www.ecofinagency.com/news-digital/0511-50160-morocco-advances-with-digital-x-0-law-to-regulate-artificial-intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No Moroccan decision sanctioning a lawyer for AI-fabricated citations was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. No AI rule or guidance from a Moroccan arbitration or mediation institution was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory requirement as of 4 September 2026. The September 2025 CSPJ-UNESCO consultation called for training judges, prosecutors, clerks and lawyers on the legal and ethical issues of AI, but no compulsory training exists.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "UNESCO — IA et droit: la première consultation au Maroc", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/fr/articles/ia-et-droit-la-premiere-consultation-au-maroc-sur-son-utilisation" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "CNDP — Communiqué de presse: IA et protection des données à caractère personnel (18 March 2025)", "url": "https://www.cndp.ma/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CNDP-Communique-IA-et-protection-des-donnees-a-caractere-personnel-FR.pdf" }, { "label": "CNDP — AI and personal data protection landing page", "url": "https://www.cndp.ma/ia-et-protection-des-donnees-a-caractere-personnel/" }, { "label": "UNESCO — IA et droit: la première consultation au Maroc sur son utilisation (22 September 2025)", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/fr/articles/ia-et-droit-la-premiere-consultation-au-maroc-sur-son-utilisation" }, { "label": "Ecofin Agency — Morocco advances with Digital X.0 law to regulate artificial intelligence (November 2025)", "url": "https://www.ecofinagency.com/news-digital/0511-50160-morocco-advances-with-digital-x-0-law-to-regulate-artificial-intelligence" }, { "label": "Policy Center for the New South — L'intelligence artificielle au Maroc: entre encadrement réglementaire et stratégie", "url": "https://www.policycenter.ma/publications/lintelligence-artificielle-au-maroc-entre-encadrement-reglementaire-et-strategie" } ] }, { "id": "mz", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/mz", "name": "Mozambique", "iso": "MZ", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Mozambique has no legal-practice AI rule or court/bar guidance located. Decree No. 14/2026 created the National Commission for Artificial Intelligence as a government advisory body, and the national AI strategy was under public consultation in 2026; no enacted AI statute or data-protection authority guidance was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Ordem dos Advogados de Moçambique", "url": "https://oam.org.mz/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Mozambique", "url": "https://www.ts.gov.mz/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Institute of Information and Communication Technologies (INTIC)", "url": "https://intic.gov.mz/", "role": "ICT/data regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "CNIA membership includes Supreme Court and Public Prosecutor representatives, but no judicial AI-use guidance or court rule was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LEX Africa — Creation of the National Commission for AI in Mozambique", "url": "https://lexafrica.com/2026/06/mozambique-ai-commission/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court AI deployment policy was found. CNIA includes judicial representatives as policy stakeholders, but the fetched sources do not describe court use of AI systems.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LEX Africa — Creation of the National Commission for AI in Mozambique", "url": "https://lexafrica.com/2026/06/mozambique-ai-commission/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "INTIC covers cyber and data-governance functions, but no AI-specific data-protection guidance or standalone data-protection authority guidance for legal AI was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "INTIC — cyber and data governance functions", "url": "https://intic.gov.mz/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "LEX Africa reports Decree No. 14/2026 created CNIA as a technical advisory body and that public consultation on Mozambique’s National AI Strategy continued until 4 June 2026. No AI statute or risk-classification rule was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "LEX Africa — Creation of the National Commission for AI in Mozambique", "url": "https://lexafrica.com/2026/06/mozambique-ai-commission/" }, { "label": "Ecofin Agency — Mozambique lays groundwork for AI sector", "url": "https://www.ecofinagency.com/news-digital/3108-58486-mozambique-lays-groundwork-for-ai-sector-ahead-of-national-strategy" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "LEX Africa — Creation of the National Commission for AI in Mozambique", "url": "https://lexafrica.com/2026/06/mozambique-ai-commission/" }, { "label": "360 Mozambique — Government establishes commission dedicated to AI", "url": "https://360mozambique.com/development/government-establishes-new-commission-dedicated-to-the-use-of-ai/" }, { "label": "Ecofin Agency — Mozambique lays groundwork for AI sector", "url": "https://www.ecofinagency.com/news-digital/3108-58486-mozambique-lays-groundwork-for-ai-sector-ahead-of-national-strategy" }, { "label": "INTIC", "url": "https://intic.gov.mz/" }, { "label": "Ordem dos Advogados de Moçambique", "url": "https://oam.org.mz/" } ] }, { "id": "mm", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/mm", "name": "Myanmar", "iso": "MM", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Myanmar has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the Union Supreme Court, government portal, legal-information sources and bar-related sources found no AI disclosure rule, judicial-use guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, sanction case or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Union Supreme Court of Myanmar", "url": "https://www.unionsupremecourt.gov.mm/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Myanmar National Portal", "url": "https://www.myanmar.gov.mm/", "role": "government" }, { "name": "Myanmar Legal Information System", "role": "legal information" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific guidance from a data-protection authority relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Union Supreme Court of Myanmar", "url": "https://www.unionsupremecourt.gov.mm/" }, { "label": "Myanmar National Portal", "url": "https://www.myanmar.gov.mm/" } ] }, { "id": "na", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/na", "name": "Namibia", "iso": "NA", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Namibia has no legal-practice AI rule located. Public reporting from the National Assembly describes a Draft AI Bill, Data Protection Bill, Cybercrime Bill and National AI Strategy, plus planned AI use in parliamentary support; no judiciary, Law Society or court filing guidance was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Law Society of Namibia", "url": "https://lawsocietynamibia.org/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Office of the Judiciary", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Information and Communication Technology", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "Reports mention e-Parliament use of AI analytics, chatbots and virtual research assistants, but no court AI deployment or judiciary AI policy was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "TrendsNAfrica — Namibia moves to regulate AI with draft laws and national strategy", "url": "https://trendsnafrica.com/namibia-moves-to-regulate-ai-with-draft-laws-and-national-strategy/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Public reports describe a Data Protection Bill to safeguard privacy and personal data, aligned with SADC model laws; no enacted data-protection law or AI-specific DPA guidance was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "TrendsNAfrica — Namibia moves to regulate AI with draft laws and national strategy", "url": "https://trendsnafrica.com/namibia-moves-to-regulate-ai-with-draft-laws-and-national-strategy/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Public reports quoting the National Assembly Speaker describe a Draft AI Bill, National AI Strategy, proposed AI Council and technical working groups. No enacted AI law, final strategy text or justice/legal-services classification was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "TrendsNAfrica — Namibia moves to regulate AI with draft laws and national strategy", "url": "https://trendsnafrica.com/namibia-moves-to-regulate-ai-with-draft-laws-and-national-strategy/" }, { "label": "iAfrica — Namibia drafts landmark AI laws", "url": "https://iafrica.com/namibia-drafts-landmark-ai-laws-to-boost-digital-governance-data-protection/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "TrendsNAfrica — Namibia moves to regulate AI with draft laws and national strategy", "url": "https://trendsnafrica.com/namibia-moves-to-regulate-ai-with-draft-laws-and-national-strategy/" }, { "label": "iAfrica — Namibia drafts landmark AI laws", "url": "https://iafrica.com/namibia-drafts-landmark-ai-laws-to-boost-digital-governance-data-protection/" }, { "label": "CIPIT — Highlights from Namibia’s AI readiness work", "url": "https://cipit.strathmore.edu/national-ai-strategies-for-ai-governance-highlights-from-namibias-recently-launched-ai-strategy/" }, { "label": "Law Society of Namibia", "url": "https://lawsocietynamibia.org/" } ] }, { "id": "np", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/np", "name": "Nepal", "iso": "NP", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Nepal's only instrument is the Judiciary Information and Communication Technology Policy 2083, approved by the Supreme Court full bench in mid-2026: AI may support drafting, research and case management but must not intrude on judicial decisions, and third-party AI must be vetted for reliability and bias. No bar rules or reported cases exist.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Nepal", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.np/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Nepal Bar Council", "url": "https://www.nepalbarcouncil.org.np/", "role": "bar" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule for lawyers; the Judiciary ICT Policy addresses only the reliability of court-used systems.", "documents": [ "np-judiciary-ict-policy-2083" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Judiciary ICT Policy 2083, strategy 5.2 and 5.2.1: AI-based systems are to support drafting and research in judicial work, but AI shall not be used in a way that directly intrudes on judicial decisions. The policy was adopted by the Supreme Court full bench.", "documents": [ "np-judiciary-ict-policy-2083" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary ICT Policy 2083 (official PDF, Nepali)", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.np/court/public/media/2026_07/6be1c3d55afda34eb3b18eebd6bb0d08.pdf" }, { "label": "Kathmandu Post report", "url": "https://kathmandupost.com/national/2026/07/03/nepal-s-courts-embrace-ai-keep-judgment-writing-human" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "binding", "note": "ICT Policy clause 5.2.1 bars AI use that directly affects judicial decisions; the Chief Registrar stated that AI will not write judgments, writ petitions or decisions requiring judicial discretion.", "documents": [ "np-judiciary-ict-policy-2083" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary ICT Policy 2083 (official PDF)", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.np/court/public/media/2026_07/6be1c3d55afda34eb3b18eebd6bb0d08.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific guidance; the Rules of Professional Code of Conduct of Legal Practitioners 2023 and the Individual Privacy Act 2018 apply generally.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kathmandu Post column", "url": "https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2026/05/13/generative-ai-s-role-in-nepal-s-judiciary-under-scrutiny" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nepal Bar Council or Nepal Bar Association guidance on AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "ICT Policy 2083 provides for AI-based systems for drafting non-decisional documents, research, case management and machine-readable records, with a judicial innovation centre to identify flagship programmes.", "documents": [ "np-judiciary-ict-policy-2083" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary ICT Policy 2083 (official PDF)", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.np/court/public/media/2026_07/6be1c3d55afda34eb3b18eebd6bb0d08.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The Individual Privacy Act 2018 applies; no AI-specific regulator guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI statute. The National AI Policy 2025 contains no provision on AI in the judiciary.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kathmandu Post column", "url": "https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2026/05/13/generative-ai-s-role-in-nepal-s-judiciary-under-scrutiny" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported case of AI-fabricated citations in Nepali courts as of 4 September 2026; the Kathmandu Post reported in May 2026 that similar issues have not surfaced in Nepal yet.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The ICT Policy commits to awareness and training on AI benefits and risks for judges, court officials, Nepal Bar Association members and court users. It is not mandatory continuing education.", "documents": [ "np-judiciary-ict-policy-2083" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Kathmandu Post report", "url": "https://kathmandupost.com/national/2026/07/03/nepal-s-courts-embrace-ai-keep-judgment-writing-human" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "ICT Policy clause 5.2.2: third-party AI systems used in judicial work must be assessed for reliability, transparency, freedom from bias and algorithmic processes before adoption.", "documents": [ "np-judiciary-ict-policy-2083" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary ICT Policy 2083 (official PDF)", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.np/court/public/media/2026_07/6be1c3d55afda34eb3b18eebd6bb0d08.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Judiciary ICT Policy 2083 (Supreme Court of Nepal, official PDF)", "url": "https://supremecourt.gov.np/court/public/media/2026_07/6be1c3d55afda34eb3b18eebd6bb0d08.pdf" }, { "label": "Kathmandu Post: Nepal's courts embrace AI, keep judgment writing human", "url": "https://kathmandupost.com/national/2026/07/03/nepal-s-courts-embrace-ai-keep-judgment-writing-human" } ] }, { "id": "nl", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/nl", "name": "Netherlands", "iso": "NL", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 the Netherlands has the most client-facing bar guidance in this group: the NOvA's Aanbevelingen AI in de advocatuur, of December 2025, is the only European bar text telling lawyers to ask the client's permission before using AI on a file. A first disciplinary reprimand followed in July 2026.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Netherlands Bar (Nederlandse orde van advocaten, NOvA)", "url": "https://www.advocatenorde.nl/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de rechtspraak)", "url": "https://www.rechtspraak.nl/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Disciplinary Boards (Raden van Discipline / Hof van Discipline)", "url": "https://tuchtrecht.overheid.nl/", "role": "discipline" }, { "name": "Data Protection Authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, AP)", "url": "https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/", "role": "data-protection / algorithm coordination" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No landelijk procesreglement, court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. The Rechtspraak AI strategy commits to developing 'visies, reglementen, afspraken' with the NOvA for handling AI in case material, but nothing is published.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Rechtspraak — AI-strategie (official)", "url": "https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/innovatie-binnen-de-rechtspraak/ai-strategie" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NOvA recommendation Deskundigheid 3: 'Verifieer altijd de output — controleer citaten, jurisprudentie en feiten altijd handmatig vóór gebruik' and use only tools that cite sources. Enforced in Raad van Discipline 's-Hertogenbosch, 27 Jul 2026 (ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93) as an aspect of deskundigheid and integriteit under art. 10a Advocatenwet.", "documents": [ "nl-nova-aanbevelingen-ai-advocatuur" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NOvA — Aanbevelingen AI in de advocatuur (official)", "url": "https://www.advocatenorde.nl/voor-advocaten/digitalisering-ai/aanbevelingen-ai-de-advocatuur" }, { "label": "ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93 (tuchtrecht.overheid.nl, official)", "url": "https://tuchtrecht.overheid.nl/ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Raad voor de rechtspraak's published AI strategy (from early 2025) sets a ten-point plan: focus on low-risk applications, 'learning-by-doing', an afwegingskader protecting judicial autonomy and art. 6 ECHR, independent oversight of that framework, and a public algorithm/AI register. Deployment of AI in high-risk processes stays excluded. RechtspraakGPT (released 10 Dec 2025) is limited to text tasks outside the primary process. The strategy followed criticism of Rechtbank Gelderland, 7 Jun 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636), where a kantonrechter used ChatGPT to estimate the lifespan of solar panels and the average kWh price in assessing damages.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Rechtspraak — Verantwoord en innovatief: AI voor een rechtvaardige Rechtspraak (official)", "url": "https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/innovatie-binnen-de-rechtspraak/ai-strategie" }, { "label": "ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636 (official)", "url": "https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Rechtspraak AI strategy point 9 states plainly: 'Rechterlijke oordeelsvorming (zoals een robotrechter) sluiten we echter uit.' It cites the AI Act and CCJE Opinion 26 on preventing improper AI influence on judicial reasoning. Not a court rule; there is no statutory ban.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Rechtspraak — AI-strategie, 10-puntenplan (official)", "url": "https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/innovatie-binnen-de-rechtspraak/ai-strategie" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material. The Rechtspraak AI strategy expressly flags AI-generated process and evidence documents and equality of arms as questions still to be worked out.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Rechtspraak — AI-strategie (official)", "url": "https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/innovatie-binnen-de-rechtspraak/ai-strategie" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NOvA 'Vertrouwelijkheid' recommendations: no confidential or client data in free or public AI models; privacy-by-design and documented trade-offs; know where data is stored and processed (country, sub-processors, security); keep input and output inside the firm environment; run a DPIA where personal data is processed; be aware of implicit data collection (location, open tabs).", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "nl-nova-aanbevelingen-ai-advocatuur" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NOvA — Aanbevelingen AI in de advocatuur (official)", "url": "https://www.advocatenorde.nl/voor-advocaten/digitalisering-ai/aanbevelingen-ai-de-advocatuur" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NOvA Deskundigheid 1–2: basic knowledge of generative AI is 'essentieel voor iedere advocaat' — LLM principles, prompt engineering, bias mitigation, hallucinations, error detection, relevant regulation and cybersecurity — plus hands-on experience. Deskundigheid is a statutory core value (art. 10a Advocatenwet) and was the ground of the 2026 reprimand.", "documents": [ "nl-nova-aanbevelingen-ai-advocatuur" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NOvA — Aanbevelingen AI (official)", "url": "https://www.advocatenorde.nl/voor-advocaten/digitalisering-ai/aanbevelingen-ai-de-advocatuur" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NOvA Onafhankelijkheid 3: 'Zorg voor toezicht op medewerkers en leveranciers, stel AI-beleid op en implementeer een controle cyclus.' Integriteit 2 requires a firm-wide AI policy. No binding supervision rule.", "documents": [ "nl-nova-aanbevelingen-ai-advocatuur" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NOvA — Aanbevelingen AI (official)", "url": "https://www.advocatenorde.nl/voor-advocaten/digitalisering-ai/aanbevelingen-ai-de-advocatuur" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The strongest position in Western Europe: NOvA Vertrouwelijkheid 2 tells lawyers to 'Vraag toestemming aan de cliënt voor AI-gebruik in het dossier', and Integriteit 3 to inform clients of the firm's AI policy. Contrast Belgium (no duty to communicate) and Germany (no professional duty). Still a recommendation, not a gedragsregel.", "documents": [ "nl-nova-aanbevelingen-ai-advocatuur" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NOvA — Aanbevelingen AI (official)", "url": "https://www.advocatenorde.nl/voor-advocaten/digitalisering-ai/aanbevelingen-ai-de-advocatuur" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, recommendation or reported case on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "Dutch law reserves only procesvertegenwoordiging in specified proceedings to advocaten (Advocatenwet); giving legal advice is not a reserved activity, so consumer AI legal products are not caught by a monopoly rule. No Dutch ruling or regulation on AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NOvA 'Aanbevelingen AI in de advocatuur', published end of 2025 (reported 10 Dec 2025), prepared by the projectgroep Digitalisering & AI. Structured around the five statutory core values — deskundigheid, vertrouwelijkheid, onafhankelijkheid, integriteit, partijdigheid — with about seventeen concrete recommendations. The NOvA also points members to the CCBE guides.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "nl-nova-aanbevelingen-ai-advocatuur" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NOvA — Aanbevelingen AI in de advocatuur (official)", "url": "https://www.advocatenorde.nl/voor-advocaten/digitalisering-ai/aanbevelingen-ai-de-advocatuur" }, { "label": "Het Advocatenblad — AI-richtlijn: advocaat blijft eindverantwoordelijk, 10 Dec 2025 (secondary)", "url": "https://www.advocatenblad.nl/2025/12/10/ai-richtlijn-advocaat-blijft-eindverantwoordelijk/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Rechtspraak AI strategy governs institutional deployment: low-risk uses (scheduling, pseudonymisation of judgments, inflow prediction and routing, B1-level summaries, chatbot public information, deadline checks, case-law search), a data-and-AI platform, compliance with the AI Act, transparency, and entry of every AI use in a publicly accessible algorithm/AI register. RechtspraakGPT is the in-house assistant.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Rechtspraak — AI-strategie (official)", "url": "https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/innovatie-binnen-de-rechtspraak/ai-strategie" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The AP supervises algorithms and AI alongside the GDPR and publishes ongoing guidance (e.g. on preparing for the fundamental-rights impact assessment/FRIA, Aug 2026). No AP guidance specific to legal services located; the NOvA recommendations carry the DPIA requirement into the profession.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens — Algoritmes & AI (official)", "url": "https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/themas/algoritmes-ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly, with Annex III point 8(a) covering AI used by or for judicial authorities. The Rechtspraak states it follows the regulation 'als vanzelfsprekend' and excludes high-risk uses until it can meet the requirements. Dutch designation of national competent authorities (AP, RDI) was not verified against an official instrument in this pass.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-draft-guidelines-high-risk-classification" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Rechtspraak — AI-strategie (official)", "url": "https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/innovatie-binnen-de-rechtspraak/ai-strategie" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Raad van Discipline 's-Hertogenbosch, 27 Jul 2026, ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93 — the first Dutch AI discipline case. A lawyer filed submissions in two rental disputes with fabricated or mismatched ECLI numbers (one pointing to a divorce ruling, another to a criminal case), then filed rectification acts without replacement authority. Breach of deskundigheid and integriteit (art. 10a Advocatenwet) and Gedragsregel 8. Sanction: berisping plus EUR 1,250 costs (EUR 750 NOvA, EUR 500 State); the confidentiality charge failed because no client data had been entered.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93 (official)", "url": "https://tuchtrecht.overheid.nl/ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no Nederlands Arbitrage Instituut (NAI) AI rule or note identified before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "Article 4 of the EU AI Act binds law firms and courts as deployers from 2 Feb 2025; the NOvA recommendations state that AI use creates obligations under the AI-verordening and tell lawyers to keep knowledge current 'via permanente educatie' and to raise it in structured feedback for quality review. There is no dedicated mandatory AI PE point requirement.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-commission-ai-literacy-qa", "nl-nova-aanbevelingen-ai-advocatuur" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NOvA — Aanbevelingen AI (official)", "url": "https://www.advocatenorde.nl/voor-advocaten/digitalisering-ai/aanbevelingen-ai-de-advocatuur" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NOvA Vertrouwelijkheid 4 and Deskundigheid 4: check contract terms on data ownership, IP rights, liability, exit clauses and vendor lock-in; do not rely on FAQs or marketing promises but read the (privacy) terms; agree quality and safeguards with the supplier in advance; document which services process personal data.", "documents": [ "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers", "nl-nova-aanbevelingen-ai-advocatuur" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NOvA — Aanbevelingen AI (official)", "url": "https://www.advocatenorde.nl/voor-advocaten/digitalisering-ai/aanbevelingen-ai-de-advocatuur" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "NOvA — Aanbevelingen AI in de advocatuur (Dec 2025)", "url": "https://www.advocatenorde.nl/voor-advocaten/digitalisering-ai/aanbevelingen-ai-de-advocatuur" }, { "label": "Rechtspraak — Verantwoord en innovatief: AI voor een rechtvaardige Rechtspraak (AI strategy)", "url": "https://www.rechtspraak.nl/organisatie-en-contact/innovatie-binnen-de-rechtspraak/ai-strategie" }, { "label": "Raad van Discipline 's-Hertogenbosch, 27 Jul 2026, ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93", "url": "https://tuchtrecht.overheid.nl/ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93" }, { "label": "Rechtbank Gelderland, 7 Jun 2024, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636 (kantonrechter used ChatGPT for factual estimates)", "url": "https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636" }, { "label": "Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens — Algoritmes & AI", "url": "https://www.autoriteitpersoonsgegevens.nl/themas/algoritmes-ai" } ] }, { "id": "nz", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/nz", "name": "New Zealand", "iso": "NZ", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 New Zealand's regime is the Chief Justice's three sets of generative-AI guidelines for courts and tribunals of 7 December 2023, unamended since. There is no practice direction, no disclosure requirement and no AI statute; the Law Society supplies profession-facing guidance and the courts have policed misuse through costs and warnings.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Courts of New Zealand (Office of the Chief Justice)", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "New Zealand Law Society | Te Kahui Ture o Aotearoa", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Office of the Privacy Commissioner | Te Mana Matapono Matatapu", "url": "https://www.privacy.org.nz/", "role": "data protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "nz", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "Deliberately absent. The December 2023 court guidelines impose no obligation to declare generative-AI use in filings, and the judicial guidelines state that judges themselves need not disclose chatbot use. Judges are instead told it may be appropriate to ask a lay litigant whether they used a chatbot and what checks they made.", "documents": [ "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — Guidelines for use of generative AI, judicial version (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Central to both instruments. The court guidelines require accuracy checking before reliance, warning that chatbots invent cases, citations and quotes and will confirm false information as accurate. The Law Society guidance requires all output to be verified before reliance.", "documents": [ "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines", "nzls-generative-ai-guidance-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — GenAI guidelines, ensure accountability and accuracy (PDF)", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "A dedicated judicial version applies to all judges, judicial officers, tribunal members and support staff. Seven principles: understand limitations; uphold confidentiality and suppression; ensure accuracy; address bias, including Maori and Pasifika cultural context; maintain security; disclosure; and watch for others' AI use.", "documents": [ "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — Guidelines for use of generative AI in courts and tribunals (judicial, 7 Dec 2023)", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "Notably permissive. The judicial guidelines contain no restriction on using generative AI in judgment writing or in the assessment of evidence, in contrast with the New South Wales, Victorian and Hong Kong instruments. Control is exercised through the accuracy and confidentiality principles instead.", "documents": [ "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — GenAI guidelines, judicial version (full text checked)", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "guidance", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — generative AI guidelines (all three versions)", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/going-to-court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/guidelines-for-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-courts-and-tribunals" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No evidence rule. The judicial guidelines warn that generative AI can fabricate convincing images, audio and other media which parties could present as evidence, and list red flags for AI-produced submissions, but the Evidence Act 2006 is unamended for synthetic media.", "documents": [ "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — GenAI guidelines, be aware of GenAI use by others", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The court guidelines say nothing that is not already public should be entered into a chatbot, and nothing private, confidential, suppressed or privileged; chat history should be disabled and breaches reported to the Head of Bench and to the Ministry of Justice. The Law Society guidance requires privacy and privilege to be protected.", "documents": [ "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines", "nzls-generative-ai-guidance-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — GenAI guidelines, uphold confidentiality, suppression and privacy", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No rule change. The Law Society applies the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules through guidance updated 24 February 2026; the court guidelines open with a requirement to understand the tool's capabilities and limitations before use.", "documents": [ "nzls-generative-ai-guidance-lawyers", "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NZ Law Society — Generative AI guidance for lawyers", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/professional-practice/rules-and-maintaining-professional-standards/generative-ai-guidance-for-lawyers/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The judicial side is explicit: clerks, research counsel and support staff must discuss with their supervising judge how they are using generative AI and what steps they take to mitigate risk. The Law Society guidance addresses firm-level responsibility for output but there is no dedicated supervision rule.", "documents": [ "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines", "nzls-generative-ai-guidance-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — GenAI guidelines, disclosure and supervision", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society guidance says clients should be told about AI use where appropriate to the engagement. There is no consent requirement and no court-side obligation.", "documents": [ "nzls-generative-ai-guidance-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NZ Law Society — Generative AI guidance for lawyers", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/professional-practice/rules-and-maintaining-professional-standards/generative-ai-guidance-for-lawyers/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "One of the few jurisdictions to address this squarely: the Law Society's updated guidance tells lawyers to review whether a fee remains reasonable where AI has materially reduced the time spent on a matter, engaging the fee-reasonableness rule.", "documents": [ "nzls-generative-ai-guidance-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NZ Law Society — Generative AI guidance for lawyers", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/professional-practice/rules-and-maintaining-professional-standards/generative-ai-guidance-for-lawyers/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 reserves certain work to lawyers, but no New Zealand determination or guidance applying it to consumer AI legal products was located before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "New Zealand Law Society generative-AI guidance, first published 2024 and updated 24 February 2026, covering verification, privacy and privilege, client communication and fee review. It is the profession's principal instrument; there is no separate Bar Association guidance.", "documents": [ "nzls-generative-ai-guidance-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NZ Law Society — Generative AI guidance for lawyers", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/professional-practice/rules-and-maintaining-professional-standards/generative-ai-guidance-for-lawyers/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No deployment policy published, but the judicial guidelines record an intention to procure an in-house generative-AI chatbot for the New Zealand judiciary that protects confidential, suppressed and private information, and forbid use of public chatbots for such material until that happens.", "documents": [ "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — GenAI guidelines, in-house chatbot", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Office of the Privacy Commissioner publishes Artificial Intelligence and the Information Privacy Principles (from 21 September 2023) and a generative-AI page setting expectations for agencies under the Privacy Act 2020; it does not approve or endorse any AI tool or vendor and expects a privacy assessment before an agency uses AI on personal information.", "documents": [ "nz-opc-ai-information-privacy-principles" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OPC — Artificial Intelligence and the Information Privacy Principles", "url": "https://www.privacy.org.nz/resources-and-learning/a-z-topics/ai/" }, { "label": "OPC — Generative Artificial Intelligence", "url": "https://www.privacy.org.nz/resources-and-learning/a-z-topics/ai/generative-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No horizontal AI statute and no risk classification of justice uses. New Zealand's stated approach is to rely on existing law with a light-touch national AI strategy, but the MBIE AI policy page could not be opened before the search budget was exhausted, so the current strategy title and date are not verified here.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Seven reported New Zealand decisions, all involving self-represented litigants, with warnings rather than penalties. In Jones v Family Court at Whangarei [2026] NZSC 1 the Supreme Court awarded NZ$500 costs and warned that reliance on unverified AI output may in serious cases amount to obstruction of justice or contempt.", "documents": [ "nz-courts-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Jones v Family Court at Whangarei [2026] NZSC 1 (official judgment PDF)", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2026/2026-NZSC-1.pdf" }, { "label": "AI Hallucination Cases database — New Zealand filter (7 cases)", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/?states=New+Zealand" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No AMINZ or NZDRC generative-AI protocol was located before the search budget was exhausted. The court guidelines apply to tribunals listed in the schedule, not to private arbitration.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI-specific CPD requirement. New Zealand lawyers' CPD is self-directed under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Ongoing Legal Education) Rules 2013; the Law Society's AI guidance is framed as competence support rather than a training mandate.", "documents": [ "nzls-generative-ai-guidance-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Thin. The Law Society guidance requires privacy and privilege to be protected in anything entered into a tool, and the Privacy Commissioner expects a privacy assessment before adoption and endorses no vendor. There is no legal-sector vendor due-diligence framework.", "documents": [ "nzls-generative-ai-guidance-lawyers", "nz-opc-ai-information-privacy-principles" ], "sources": [ { "label": "OPC — does the OPC approve or endorse AI providers? (knowledge base)", "url": "https://www.privacy.org.nz/resources-and-learning/knowledge-base/view/641/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — Guidelines for use of generative AI in courts and tribunals (7 Dec 2023)", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/going-to-court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/guidelines-for-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-courts-and-tribunals" }, { "label": "Courts of New Zealand — judicial version (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Judicial.pdf" }, { "label": "New Zealand Law Society — Generative AI guidance for lawyers (updated 24 Feb 2026)", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/professional-practice/rules-and-maintaining-professional-standards/generative-ai-guidance-for-lawyers/" }, { "label": "Office of the Privacy Commissioner — AI and the Information Privacy Principles", "url": "https://www.privacy.org.nz/resources-and-learning/a-z-topics/ai/" }, { "label": "Jones v Family Court at Whangarei [2026] NZSC 1", "url": "https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2026/2026-NZSC-1.pdf" } ] }, { "id": "ni", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ni", "name": "Nicaragua", "iso": "NI", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Nicaragua has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the judiciary, National Assembly, bar-related sources and privacy materials found no AI court disclosure rule, judicial-use guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, legal-AI sanction or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice / Judicial Branch", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Assembly", "role": "legislature" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "General personal-data processing rules exist; no AI-specific data-protection guidance relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Nicaragua", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=NI" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Nicaragua", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=NI" } ] }, { "id": "ng", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ng", "name": "Nigeria", "iso": "NG", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Nigeria's only legal-practice AI rules are voluntary: the Nigerian Bar Association Section on Legal Practice's Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession, launched 28 August 2024. Binding obligations come from data protection under the NDPA 2023 and GAID 2025. No court rule exists.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Nigerian Bar Association (NBA)", "url": "https://nigerianbar.org.ng/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Nigerian Bar Association — Section on Legal Practice (NBA-SLP), Technology and Law Committee", "url": "https://blog.nigerianbar.org.ng/2024/09/14/nba-launches-new-technology-guidelines-for-legal-practice/", "role": "bar section" }, { "name": "Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC)", "url": "https://ndpc.gov.ng/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA)", "url": "https://nitda.gov.ng/", "role": "technology regulator" }, { "name": "Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy (FMCIDE)", "url": "https://fmcide.gov.ng/initiative/nais/", "role": "government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nigerian court rule or practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use. The Supreme Court's 2026 practice directions (effective 1 Jul 2026) mandate electronic upload of processes only and are silent on AI.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines s.7.1 (28 Aug 2024) require outputs to be thoroughly reviewed before reliance in client work, verifying factual accuracy, legal soundness and bias. Non-binding; no court rule.", "documents": [ "ng-nba-slp-ai-guidelines-legal-profession" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines (official text, archived)", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20241109105437/https://nbaslp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Guidelines-for-the-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-the-Nigerian-Legal-Profession.pdf" }, { "label": "NBA launch announcement (official)", "url": "https://blog.nigerianbar.org.ng/2024/09/14/nba-launches-new-technology-guidelines-for-legal-practice/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No guidance for judges or court staff. The Chief Justice of Nigeria urged responsible adoption of AI at the NBA Annual General Conference (24 Aug 2026) but issued no rule or policy.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Report of CJN keynote, NBA AGC 2026", "url": "https://www.lawyard.org/news/nba-agc-2026-cjn-urges-legal-profession-to-embrace-responsible-use-of-ai-in-legal-practice/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific evidence rule. Computer-generated evidence is handled under s.84 Evidence Act 2011; commentary argues it is inadequate for generative-AI material, but no amendment or practice direction has been made.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines s.5.3 and s.7.1 state client information and uploaded documents should never be used with generative-AI tools lacking robust security and confidentiality protocols, and require NDPA 2023 alignment.", "documents": [ "ng-nba-slp-ai-guidelines-legal-profession" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines (official text, archived)", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20241109105437/https://nbaslp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Guidelines-for-the-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-the-Nigerian-Legal-Profession.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines s.7.1 require lawyers to understand the capabilities and limitations of generative-AI tools, including through training, and s.7.2 warns against overreliance and uninformed use. The Rules of Professional Conduct do not name AI.", "documents": [ "ng-nba-slp-ai-guidelines-legal-profession" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines (official text, archived)", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20241109105437/https://nbaslp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Guidelines-for-the-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-the-Nigerian-Legal-Profession.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines s.7.1 make lawyers responsible for subordinates' work and require supervision of junior lawyers and staff using generative AI.", "documents": [ "ng-nba-slp-ai-guidelines-legal-profession" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines (official text, archived)", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20241109105437/https://nbaslp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Guidelines-for-the-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-the-Nigerian-Legal-Profession.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines s.7.1 say lawyers should disclose use of generative-AI tools to clients and obtain informed consent before proceeding. Aspirational wording; not a rule.", "documents": [ "ng-nba-slp-ai-guidelines-legal-profession" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines (official text, archived)", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20241109105437/https://nbaslp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Guidelines-for-the-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-the-Nigerian-Legal-Profession.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "no rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NBA-SLP launched four technology documents on 28 Aug 2024, including Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession in Nigeria (34pp, Technology and Law Committee). The publicly circulated text is watermarked DRAFT.", "documents": [ "ng-nba-slp-ai-guidelines-legal-profession" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NBA launch announcement (official)", "url": "https://blog.nigerianbar.org.ng/2024/09/14/nba-launches-new-technology-guidelines-for-legal-practice/" }, { "label": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines (official text, archived)", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20241109105437/https://nbaslp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Guidelines-for-the-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-the-Nigerian-Legal-Profession.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No policy on judiciary AI deployment. Digitisation is proceeding via the National Case Management System and mandatory e-filing of Supreme Court processes from 1 Jul 2026, neither of which addresses AI.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "NDPC's General Application and Implementation Directive 2025 (issued 20 Mar 2025, effective 19 Sep 2025) Article 43 binds controllers deploying AI: documented technical and organisational parameters filed with the Commission, a DPIA, anonymisation and low-risk testing, disparate-outcome review and continuous monitoring; Article 44 requires ceasing non-human-rights-compliant systems.", "documents": [ "ng-ndpa-gaid-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NDP Act GAID 2025 (official PDF)", "url": "https://ndpc.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/NDP-ACT-GAID-2025-MARCH-20TH.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No AI statute. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (FMCIDE/NITDA-NCAIR, Aug 2024) is still marked draft and does not mention the judiciary or legal sector. Bills before the National Assembly include the National AI Commission (Establishment) Bill and the National Digital Economy and E-Governance Bill; none classifies justice uses.", "documents": [ "ng-national-ai-strategy-2024" ], "sources": [ { "label": "National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, August 2024 (official PDF, marked DRAFT)", "url": "https://ncair.nitda.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/National-AI-Strategy_01082024-copy.pdf" }, { "label": "FMCIDE NAIS initiative page", "url": "https://fmcide.gov.ng/initiative/nais/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported Nigerian decision applying costs, contempt or disciplinary powers to AI-fabricated citations was found. No Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee ruling on AI located as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI rules or guidance found from Nigerian arbitral institutions, including the Lagos Multi-Door Courthouse, as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training. NBA-SLP Guidelines s.9 recommend AI literacy and continuous education; the Taraba State Judiciary ran AI training for High Court judges, but nothing is required by the NBA or the National Judicial Institute.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines s.6.1 set criteria for selecting AI tools and s.10.2 addresses contractual agreements with developers; lawyers are told to establish data-protection agreements and confirm vendor compliance with applicable privacy regimes.", "documents": [ "ng-nba-slp-ai-guidelines-legal-profession", "ng-ndpa-gaid-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NBA-SLP AI Guidelines (official text, archived)", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20241109105437/https://nbaslp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Guidelines-for-the-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-the-Nigerian-Legal-Profession.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "NBA-SLP Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Profession in Nigeria (archived official PDF)", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20241109105437/https://nbaslp.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Guidelines-for-the-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence-in-the-Nigerian-Legal-Profession.pdf" }, { "label": "NBA launches new technology guidelines for legal practice (official announcement, 14 Sep 2024)", "url": "https://blog.nigerianbar.org.ng/2024/09/14/nba-launches-new-technology-guidelines-for-legal-practice/" }, { "label": "Nigeria Data Protection Act General Application and Implementation Directive 2025 (NDPC official PDF)", "url": "https://ndpc.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/NDP-ACT-GAID-2025-MARCH-20TH.pdf" }, { "label": "National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, August 2024 (NCAIR/NITDA official PDF)", "url": "https://ncair.nitda.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/National-AI-Strategy_01082024-copy.pdf" }, { "label": "NBA invitation to comment on technology guidelines (official, 3 May 2024)", "url": "https://blog.nigerianbar.org.ng/2024/05/03/invitation-to-comment-guidelines-on-the-use-of-technology-in-legal-practice/" } ] }, { "id": "mk", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/mk", "name": "North Macedonia", "iso": "MK", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 North Macedonia has no dedicated AI law, official AI policy, court rule, bar guidance or legal-practice AI case located. It signed the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention on 8 May 2026; domestic legal effects remain pending ratification and implementation.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Macedonian Bar Association", "url": "https://mba.org.mk/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of North Macedonia", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Agency", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The Law on Personal Data Protection regulates automated decision-making generally, but CMS found no AI-specific regulatory oversight or guidance, and no legal-sector AI guidance was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in North Macedonia", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/north-macedonia" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "North Macedonia signed the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention on 8 May 2026. CMS reported no dedicated AI law, official AI policy or forthcoming AI legislation in force domestically.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Council of Europe — North Macedonia signs AI Framework Convention", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/-/north-macedonia-signs-the-council-of-europe-s-framework-convention-on-artificial-intelligence" }, { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in North Macedonia", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/north-macedonia" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in North Macedonia", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/north-macedonia" }, { "label": "Council of Europe — North Macedonia signs AI Framework Convention", "url": "https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/-/north-macedonia-signs-the-council-of-europe-s-framework-convention-on-artificial-intelligence" }, { "label": "Macedonian Bar Association", "url": "https://mba.org.mk/" } ] }, { "id": "no", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/no", "name": "Norway", "iso": "NO", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Norway has the strongest court-issued lawyer guidance in the Nordics: after a brief with AI-invented sources arrived in April 2025, the Supreme Court added section 19 'Bruk av KI-verktøy' to its Veiledning for advokater. The Bar Association adopted AI ethics guidance on 5 September 2025. A KI-lov implementing the AI Act via the EEA Agreement is expected in 2026.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Norway [Norges Høyesterett]", "url": "https://www.domstol.no/no/hoyesterett/advokater/advokatveiledningen/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Norwegian Bar Association [Advokatforeningen]", "url": "https://www.advokatforeningen.no/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "National Courts Administration [Domstoladministrasjonen]", "url": "https://www.domstol.no/domstoladministrasjonen/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Norwegian Data Protection Authority [Datatilsynet]", "url": "https://www.datatilsynet.no/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance [Digitaliserings- og forvaltningsdepartementet]", "url": "https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dep/dfd/id3125571/", "role": "government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "The Supreme Court's guidance imposes verification duties but does not require parties to disclose or certify AI use in pleadings; no Norwegian court rule does so as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Veiledning for advokater, July 2026 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.domstol.no/contentassets/d1d57fd8703546fd8f618c124e32d1d3/advokatveiledningen-juli-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Supreme Court guidance section 19: 'Det er kjent at KI kan hallusinere og finne opp blant annet rettskilder. Kilder og andre opplysninger KI oppgir, må kvalitetssikres.' The lawyer is personally responsible for all information used, including legal material, and must ensure central sources are not overlooked.", "documents": [ "no-hoyesterett-advokatveiledningen-ai", "no-advokatforeningen-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Norges Høyesterett — Veiledning for advokater, s. 54 (PDF, July 2026)", "url": "https://www.domstol.no/contentassets/d1d57fd8703546fd8f618c124e32d1d3/advokatveiledningen-juli-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Domstoladministrasjonen completed risk analyses for Microsoft 365 Copilot in the courts and was finalising staff guidelines in 2025; AI is used for summarisation and structuring, not decision support. No published judicial AI policy located as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatbladet — AI coming into the courts", "url": "https://www.advokatbladet.no/domstoladministrasjonen-kunstig-intelligens/na-er-kunstig-intelligens-pa-vei-inn-i-domstolene/222033" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No Norwegian rule bars AI from adjudicative reasoning. Domstoladministrasjonen's public position is that no suspicion may arise that a judgment was written by AI, but this is stated policy, not an instrument.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "Norway applies free evaluation of evidence [fri bevisbedømmelse]; no rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Advokatforeningen's AI guidance (5 Sept 2025) is issued under its professional-ethics framework and addresses confidentiality of client information in AI tools; full text is members-only. The CCBE guide is also promoted to Norwegian members.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "no-advokatforeningen-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatforeningen — Veiledning for bruk av kunstig intelligens i advokatvirksomhet", "url": "https://www.advokatforeningen.no/advokatetikk/anbefalinger/veiledning-for-bruk-av-kunstig-intelligens-i-advokatvirksomhet/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Supreme Court guidance: AI 'bør bare brukes på områder hvor advokaten har god nok kompetanse til å kontrollere innholdet'. The AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty is not yet in force in Norway pending EEA incorporation and the domestic KI-lov.", "documents": [ "no-hoyesterett-advokatveiledningen-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Norges Høyesterett — Veiledning for advokater (PDF)", "url": "https://www.domstol.no/contentassets/d1d57fd8703546fd8f618c124e32d1d3/advokatveiledningen-juli-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Advokatforeningen guidance places final responsibility on the lawyer even where AI is used as a tool; no separate binding supervision rule for AI-assisted work.", "documents": [ "no-advokatforeningen-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatforeningen — AI guidance", "url": "https://www.advokatforeningen.no/advokatetikk/anbefalinger/veiledning-for-bruk-av-kunstig-intelligens-i-advokatvirksomhet/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Advokatforeningen's guidance is behind a member login and its position on informing clients could not be confirmed; no public Norwegian rule requires client disclosure of AI use.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Norwegian rule, guidance or reported decision on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "The Courts of Justice Act [domstolloven] reserves legal-services provision, but no ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Advokatforeningen's ethics committee produced 'Veiledning for bruk av kunstig intelligens i advokatvirksomhet', approved by the board on 5 September 2025. The Association also circulates the CCBE generative-AI guide to members.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "no-hoyesterett-advokatveiledningen-ai", "no-advokatforeningen-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatforeningen — AI guidance", "url": "https://www.advokatforeningen.no/advokatetikk/anbefalinger/veiledning-for-bruk-av-kunstig-intelligens-i-advokatvirksomhet/" }, { "label": "Advokatforeningen — CCBE guidance", "url": "https://www.advokatforeningen.no/advokatvirksomhet/drift/rutiner-og-anbefalinger/ccbes-veiledning-om-advokaters-brukkunstig-intelligens/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Norwegian courts use Microsoft 365 Copilot as an internal support tool after Domstoladministrasjonen risk assessments; guidelines were being finalised in 2025 and no public deployment policy had been published as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatbladet — AI coming into the courts", "url": "https://www.advokatbladet.no/domstoladministrasjonen-kunstig-intelligens/na-er-kunstig-intelligens-pa-vei-inn-i-domstolene/222033" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Datatilsynet has run a regulatory sandbox for responsible AI since 2020, with generative AI a focus area, and publishes exit reports and guidance materials from sandbox projects plus its AI-and-privacy report.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Datatilsynet — sandbox for artificial intelligence", "url": "https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/regulations-and-tools/sandbox-for-artificial-intelligence/" }, { "label": "Datatilsynet — AI and privacy", "url": "https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/regulations-and-tools/reports-on-specific-subjects/ai-and-privacy/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The AI Act is not yet Norwegian law. The Ministry of Digitalisation consulted on a KI-lov incorporating Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 into Norwegian law, consultation closing 30 September 2025, with entry into force targeted for late summer 2026.", "documents": [ "no-ki-lov-consultation" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regjeringen — consultation on a new Act on artificial intelligence", "url": "https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/lov-om-kunstig-intelligens-i-norge-sendes-na-pa-horing/id3113732/" }, { "label": "Datatilsynet — new AI Act sent for consultation", "url": "https://www.datatilsynet.no/aktuelt/aktuelle-nyheter-2025/ny-lov-om-ki-sendt-pa-horing/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "In April 2025 the Supreme Court received its first brief with AI-fabricated statutes and preparatory works. Chief Justice Toril Marie Øie confirmed the court contacted the lawyer without sanctioning, but said future breaches could bring procedural fines [rettergangsbot] or referral to the disciplinary board.", "documents": [ "no-hoyesterett-advokatveiledningen-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatbladet — Supreme Court receives first brief with invented sources", "url": "https://www.advokatbladet.no/hoyesterett-kunstig-intelligens/hoyesterett-har-mottatt-sitt-forste-prosesskriv-med-oppdiktede-kilder/227171" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "The Oslo Chamber of Commerce arbitration institute had issued no AI rule or guideline as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training for Norwegian lawyers; Advokatforeningen and Juristforbundet offer voluntary courses and webinars.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Datatilsynet sandbox reports give practical due-diligence material for AI deployments; Advokatforeningen guidance covers tool choice for firms. No legal-sector procurement rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Datatilsynet — AI sandbox", "url": "https://www.datatilsynet.no/en/regulations-and-tools/sandbox-for-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Norges Høyesterett — Veiledning for advokater, section 19 (July 2026 PDF)", "url": "https://www.domstol.no/contentassets/d1d57fd8703546fd8f618c124e32d1d3/advokatveiledningen-juli-2026.pdf" }, { "label": "Norges Høyesterett — Advokatveiledningen landing page", "url": "https://www.domstol.no/no/hoyesterett/advokater/advokatveiledningen/" }, { "label": "Advokatforeningen — Veiledning for bruk av kunstig intelligens i advokatvirksomhet (5 Sept 2025)", "url": "https://www.advokatforeningen.no/advokatetikk/anbefalinger/veiledning-for-bruk-av-kunstig-intelligens-i-advokatvirksomhet/" }, { "label": "Regjeringen — consultation on a Norwegian AI Act", "url": "https://www.regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/lov-om-kunstig-intelligens-i-norge-sendes-na-pa-horing/id3113732/" }, { "label": "Advokatbladet — first Supreme Court brief with AI-invented sources (April 2025)", "url": "https://www.advokatbladet.no/hoyesterett-kunstig-intelligens/hoyesterett-har-mottatt-sitt-forste-prosesskriv-med-oppdiktede-kilder/227171" } ] }, { "id": "om", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/om", "name": "Oman", "iso": "OM", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "religious-mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Oman has no legal-profession or court AI rule. MTCIT’s 2025 General Policy for the Safe and Ethical Use of AI Systems is cross-sector guidance requiring responsible, transparent, privacy-respecting AI governance and human oversight in sensitive decisions. The Personal Data Protection Law applies generally.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Judicial Council", "url": "https://sjc.gov.om/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs", "url": "https://mjla.gov.om/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Ministry of Transport, Communications and Information Technology", "url": "https://mtcit.gov.om/library-3/legislations-policies-8/policies-73/general-policy-for-the-safe-and-ethical-use-of-artificial-intelligence-systems-291", "role": "ai/data regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "MTCIT’s AI policy stresses human oversight in sensitive decision-making, but no judicial rule barring AI adjudication or judgment drafting was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "MTCIT — AI policy launch notice", "url": "https://prod.mtcit.gov.om/ITAPortal/MediaCenter/NewsDetail.aspx?NID=181398" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "MTCIT’s 2025 AI policy requires AI governance respecting privacy, data-misuse risk controls, decision documentation and compliance reports to regulators. It is cross-sector and not legal-sector specific.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "MTCIT — AI policy launch notice", "url": "https://prod.mtcit.gov.om/ITAPortal/MediaCenter/NewsDetail.aspx?NID=181398" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "MTCIT’s 2025 General Policy for Safe and Ethical Use of AI Systems is a national reference framework for public/private AI governance, transparency, fairness, accountability, privacy and human oversight. It does not name courts or legal services.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "MTCIT — General Policy for Safe and Ethical Use of AI Systems", "url": "https://mtcit.gov.om/library-3/legislations-policies-8/policies-73/general-policy-for-the-safe-and-ethical-use-of-artificial-intelligence-systems-291" }, { "label": "MTCIT — AI policy launch notice", "url": "https://prod.mtcit.gov.om/ITAPortal/MediaCenter/NewsDetail.aspx?NID=181398" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "MTCIT — General Policy for Safe and Ethical Use of AI Systems", "url": "https://mtcit.gov.om/library-3/legislations-policies-8/policies-73/general-policy-for-the-safe-and-ethical-use-of-artificial-intelligence-systems-291" }, { "label": "MTCIT — AI policy launch notice", "url": "https://prod.mtcit.gov.om/ITAPortal/MediaCenter/NewsDetail.aspx?NID=181398" }, { "label": "Supreme Judicial Council", "url": "https://sjc.gov.om/" }, { "label": "Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs", "url": "https://mjla.gov.om/" } ] }, { "id": "pk", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/pk", "name": "Pakistan", "iso": "PK", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Pakistan's position is judge-led. Ishfaq Ahmed v Mushtaq Ahmed (Supreme Court, April 2025) endorsed AI as an assistive tool, warned of hallucinations and directed the judicial policy committee to frame guidelines; the NJPMC approved National Guidelines for AI in Judicial Institutions on 29 April 2026. No bar rules and no statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Pakistan", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee and Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan", "url": "https://ljcp.gov.pk/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Pakistan Bar Council", "url": "https://pakistanbarcouncil.org/", "role": "bar" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Ishfaq Ahmed v Mushtaq Ahmed (Supreme Court, April 2025): AI output including large-language-model legal references may be fabricated, and human oversight is essential to verify AI-generated content before reliance. The holding applies to judges; there is no lawyer-facing rule.", "documents": [ "pk-sc-ishfaq-ahmed-v-mushtaq-ahmed-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Sindh High Court Legal Research Cell digest, 1-15 April 2025", "url": "https://lrc.shc.gov.pk/downloads/fortnightly_1stapril2025-15aprfinal.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NJPMC National Guidelines for the Use of AI in Judicial Institutions, approved at the 57th meeting on 29 April 2026: AI is to assist, not replace, judges; permitted for case management, legal research, predictive analytics and document processing, with data-protection and training safeguards. High Courts retain implementation autonomy. The official text is not online.", "documents": [ "pk-njpmc-national-ai-guidelines-judicial-institutions-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Dawn on the NJPMC guidelines", "url": "https://www.dawn.com/news/1996074/njpmc-issues-guidelines-for-ai-use-in-judicial-institutions" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The NJPMC guidelines of 29 April 2026 keep judicial decision-making firmly in human hands. Ishfaq Ahmed (2025) held that AI must never supplant judicial discretion and must respect the Article 10A fair-trial right.", "documents": [ "pk-njpmc-national-ai-guidelines-judicial-institutions-2026", "pk-sc-ishfaq-ahmed-v-mushtaq-ahmed-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Dawn on the NJPMC guidelines", "url": "https://www.dawn.com/news/1996074/njpmc-issues-guidelines-for-ai-use-in-judicial-institutions" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance found. The NJPMC guidelines refer to privacy and data-security standards for court use only.", "documents": [ "pk-njpmc-national-ai-guidelines-judicial-institutions-2026" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Pakistan Bar Council or provincial bar guidance on generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The NJPMC guidelines of April 2026 frame institutional AI adoption. The Federal Judicial Academy's Judge-GPT, a retrieval system over roughly 130,000 Pakistani judgments, was trialled from 2024 with about 1,559 trial judges; results published in August 2026 showed a 6.3 per cent rise in disposals.", "documents": [ "pk-njpmc-national-ai-guidelines-judicial-institutions-2026", "pk-sc-ishfaq-ahmed-v-mushtaq-ahmed-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "IEEE Spectrum on the Judge-GPT trial", "url": "https://spectrum.ieee.org/judgegpt-experiment" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No general data-protection statute is in force and no regulator guidance on legal AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "A federal National AI Policy was reported approved in 2025 but could not be verified from an official source within the research budget; no AI statute or risk classification applies to courts.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported costs, contempt or disciplinary order for AI-fabricated citations found as of 4 September 2026. The 2023 Phalia sessions-court use of GPT-4 was a judge's experiment, not a sanction.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "IBA: AI in Pakistani courts of law", "url": "https://www.ibanet.org/AI-in-Pakistani-courts-of-law" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or ADR AI rules found as of 4 September 2026; Ishfaq Ahmed observed that mediation and ADR cannot be replaced by AI.", "documents": [ "pk-sc-ishfaq-ahmed-v-mushtaq-ahmed-2025" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The NJPMC guidelines provide for structured AI training for judges and court staff, and the Judge-GPT trial ran six ninety-minute training sessions with the Federal Judicial Academy. There is no requirement for lawyers.", "documents": [ "pk-njpmc-national-ai-guidelines-judicial-institutions-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Dawn on the NJPMC guidelines", "url": "https://www.dawn.com/news/1996074/njpmc-issues-guidelines-for-ai-use-in-judicial-institutions" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No procurement or vendor due-diligence guidance for legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Ishfaq Ahmed v Mushtaq Ahmed, C.P.L.A. 1010-L/2022 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/c.p._1010_l_2022.pdf" }, { "label": "Sindh High Court Legal Research Cell digest of the judgment", "url": "https://lrc.shc.gov.pk/downloads/fortnightly_1stapril2025-15aprfinal.pdf" }, { "label": "Dawn: NJPMC issues guidelines for AI use in judicial institutions", "url": "https://www.dawn.com/news/1996074/njpmc-issues-guidelines-for-ai-use-in-judicial-institutions" }, { "label": "IEEE Spectrum: the Judge-GPT experiment", "url": "https://spectrum.ieee.org/judgegpt-experiment" } ] }, { "id": "pa", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/pa", "name": "Panama", "iso": "PA", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Panama has no rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. The Judicial Branch announced AI support for civil-case processing in January 2026, stating that AI will not replace judges, and helped draft the Ibero-American judicial AI governance framework, but no acuerdo, bar guidance or statute has been adopted.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Judicial Branch (Organo Judicial)", "url": "https://www.organojudicial.gob.pa/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Bar Association (Colegio Nacional de Abogados de Panama)", "url": "https://cnapanama.com/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "National Authority for Government Innovation (AIG)", "url": "https://aig.gob.pa/", "role": "regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Supreme Court acuerdo or guideline for judges' use of AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "Only a policy statement, that AI will not replace judges, magistrates or officials, made at a January 2026 press conference. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "La Estrella on AI in civil courts", "url": "https://www.laestrella.com.pa/panama/nacional/organo-judicial-usara-inteligencia-artificial-para-casos-civiles-HO19241161" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the National Bar Association found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "AI for civil-case triage was announced on 20 January 2026 alongside the new Civil Procedure Code, and Panama co-drafted the Ibero-American framework on governance, transparency and explainability. No written deployment policy was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "La Estrella on AI in civil courts", "url": "https://www.laestrella.com.pa/panama/nacional/organo-judicial-usara-inteligencia-artificial-para-casos-civiles-HO19241161" }, { "label": "Organo Judicial: Ibero-American AI projects", "url": "https://www.organojudicial.gob.pa/noticias/poderes-judiciales-de-iberoamerica-aprueban-cuatro-proyectos-sobre-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-la-justicia" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Ley 81 of 2019 applies generally; no guidance on AI relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "AI bills have been reported in the National Assembly but could not be verified against official records in this research window; no statute is confirmed in force.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI rules from Panamanian arbitration or ADR bodies found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "La Estrella: AI in civil courts", "url": "https://www.laestrella.com.pa/panama/nacional/organo-judicial-usara-inteligencia-artificial-para-casos-civiles-HO19241161" }, { "label": "Organo Judicial: Ibero-American AI projects", "url": "https://www.organojudicial.gob.pa/noticias/poderes-judiciales-de-iberoamerica-aprueban-cuatro-proyectos-sobre-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-en-la-justicia" } ] }, { "id": "py", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/py", "name": "Paraguay", "iso": "PY", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Paraguay has no verified AI rule for legal practice. The Supreme Court and bar materials checked show ordinary digital-court activity, but no AI filing disclosure, judicial-use guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, evidence rule, sanction case or horizontal AI statute was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice", "url": "https://www.pj.gov.py/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Paraguayan Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados del Paraguay)", "url": "https://colegiodeabogados.org.py/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Information and Communication Technologies", "role": "digital-government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Colegio de Abogados del Paraguay found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Paraguay has general personal-credit-data rules; no AI-specific data-protection guidance relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Paraguay", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=PY" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay", "url": "https://www.pj.gov.py/" }, { "label": "Colegio de Abogados del Paraguay", "url": "https://colegiodeabogados.org.py/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Paraguay", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=PY" } ] }, { "id": "pe", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/pe", "name": "Peru", "iso": "PE", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Peru has a horizontal AI statute, Ley 31814 of 2023 with its 2025 implementing decree, that names justice as a priority sector, but no judiciary directive, bar guidance or reported sanctions case on AI in legal practice. The judiciary deploys the generative Curia drafting assistant while its AI policy remains pending.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Judiciary of Peru (Poder Judicial del Peru)", "url": "https://www.pj.gob.pe/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Secretariat of Government and Digital Transformation", "url": "https://www.gob.pe/pcm", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Lima Bar Association (Ilustre Colegio de Abogados de Lima)", "url": "https://www.cal.org.pe/", "role": "bar" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "The judiciary confirmed in 2024 that it had issued no AI guidance for judges, and as of August 2026 its Digital Transformation Committee was still expected to approve AI-use policies. No rule or guidance is in force as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "El Peruano on the pending judiciary AI policy", "url": "https://elperuano.pe/noticia/303271-ia-en-la-justicia-pj-impulsa-su-uso-responsable-para-agilizar-expedientes-y-mejorar-el-servicio" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule. Supreme Court statements on the Curia assistant stress that judges remain responsible and that AI is assistance rather than substitute, but no binding or written guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Lima Bar or other bar colleges found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "The Supreme Court presented Curia on 14 March 2025, a generative-AI assistant trained on more than 800,000 resolutions that drafts reasoned decisions for judicial review, but no governing policy had been adopted as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Poder Judicial: Curia presentation", "url": "https://www.pj.gob.pe/wps/wcm/connect/cortesuprema/s_cortes_suprema_home/as_inicio/as_enlaces_destacados/as_imagen_prensa/as_notas_noticias/2025/cs_n-pj-presenta-asistente-de-inteligencia-artificial-curia-para-optimizar-servicio-de-justicia-14032025" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific guidance from the national data protection authority relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "Ley 31814, published on 5 July 2023, promotes AI under principles of human dignity and rights, names the government digital transformation secretariat as national authority, and declares justice a priority sector. Its implementing decree of September 2025 adds a risk-based approach; its treatment of judicial uses could not be verified.", "documents": [ "pe-ley-31814-inteligencia-artificial" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ley 31814 (El Peruano)", "url": "https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/dispositivo/NL/2192926-1" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported Peruvian sanction for AI-hallucinated citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Ley 31814 (El Peruano)", "url": "https://busquedas.elperuano.pe/dispositivo/NL/2192926-1" }, { "label": "Poder Judicial: Curia AI assistant", "url": "https://www.pj.gob.pe/wps/wcm/connect/cortesuprema/s_cortes_suprema_home/as_inicio/as_enlaces_destacados/as_imagen_prensa/as_notas_noticias/2025/cs_n-pj-presenta-asistente-de-inteligencia-artificial-curia-para-optimizar-servicio-de-justicia-14032025" }, { "label": "El Peruano: judiciary AI policy pending", "url": "https://elperuano.pe/noticia/303271-ia-en-la-justicia-pj-impulsa-su-uso-responsable-para-agilizar-expedientes-y-mejorar-el-servicio" } ] }, { "id": "ph", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ph", "name": "Philippines", "iso": "PH", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "The Philippines went from nothing to one of Asia's most comprehensive judicial AI instruments in February 2026, when the Supreme Court En Banc adopted A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, its Governance Framework on Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence. It binds judges, court staff, court users including the Bar, and AI vendors, and is reinforced by AI provisions in the 2025 conduct codes.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of the Philippines (En Banc)", "url": "https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Supreme Court Committee on Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence", "url": "https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-adopts-framework-for-judiciarys-use-of-artificial-intelligence/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)", "url": "https://ibp.ph/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA)", "url": "https://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Privacy Commission (NPC)", "url": "https://privacy.gov.ph/", "role": "data protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC makes AI-use disclosure mandatory for judges and court staff preparing court-issued adjudicatory documents: tool and version, purpose, extent of use, degree of human oversight, preservation of the output, and a responsibility statement. Court users' submissions are within scope but there is no separate lawyer certification rule yet.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC, Governance Framework (SC E-Library full text)", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Canon VI, Section 5 of the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability permits a judge to use AI tools only for research of relevant legal authorities and requires the sources always to be verified before citation. Canon III, Section 6 of the court-personnel code mirrors this.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-2025-code-judicial-conduct-accountability", "ph-sc-2025-code-conduct-court-officials-personnel", "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-04-04-SC, 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/100836" }, { "label": "A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC, 2025 Code of Conduct for Court Officials and Personnel", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/100842" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Canon VI, Section 6 of the CJCA governs the ethical use of technology and AI; the Framework provides that AI is an aid that must never substitute the judge's own discernment and discretion, especially in writing decisions and resolutions.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-2025-code-judicial-conduct-accountability", "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-04-04-SC, CJCA Canon VI", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/100836" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "binding", "note": "The strongest formulation in the region: under the Framework, AI tools or their output must under no circumstance serve as the sole, primary or determinative basis of any adjudicatory outcome; CJCA Canon VI, Section 3 requires a judge personally to write all decisions and resolutions.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework", "ph-sc-2025-code-judicial-conduct-accountability" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No AI or deepfake-specific evidentiary rule; the 2001 Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC) still govern. The Framework only flags judicial training on litigants' use of AI tools or outputs as evidence.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "Framework Part II.6: no AI tool shall be used to process confidential, privileged, sensitive or secret information without express authority and under the strict supervision of the Court. Reinforced by CPRA confidentiality duties and NPC Advisory No. 2024-04.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework", "ph-npc-advisory-2024-04-ai-systems" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138" }, { "label": "NPC Advisory No. 2024-04 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.privacy.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Advisory-2024.12.19-Guidelines-on-Artificial-Intelligence-w-SGD.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Generic only. The 2023 Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability contains no reference to AI; competence rests on Canon IV, Sections 1 and 8. The Framework tasks the AI Committee with studying AI literacy and competency standards for lawyers and law students.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (official PDF)", "url": "https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/22-09-01-SC-FINAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Framework provides that a lawyer shall not evade responsibility by claiming that a violation or breach was the fault of, or caused by, an AI tool. CPRA Canon II, Sections 34 to 35 on supervising paralegals and non-delegable legal tasks apply by analogy.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No Philippine rule requires client notice of, or consent to, a lawyer's use of AI. CPRA Canon IV, Section 6 on the duty to update the client is generic and predates the issue.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, CPRA (official PDF)", "url": "https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/22-09-01-SC-FINAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work; the CPRA's fee provisions are silent on technology.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, CPRA (official PDF)", "url": "https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/22-09-01-SC-FINAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "CPRA Canon II, Section 35 bars delegating legal advice or opinions to a non-lawyer including a paralegal, but is drafted for persons; no Supreme Court ruling or rule extends it to AI systems.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC, CPRA (official PDF)", "url": "https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/22-09-01-SC-FINAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No IBP-issued AI guidance exists. The Framework directs the IBP to monitor the profession's engagement with AI tools and report regularly to the Supreme Court, and gives the new AI Committee a mandate to direct ethical AI use in the practice of the legal profession.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "No AI tool may be used unless authorised by the Supreme Court En Banc, with a phased pilot-then-rollout process. Scriptix voice-to-text was piloted from July 2023 to September 2024 in the Sandiganbayan and 41 trial courts, cutting transcription time by 50 to 80 per cent, with full rollout procured in 2025; eCourt PH 2.0 continues.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework", "ph-sc-2025-code-conduct-court-officials-personnel" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SC — Chief Justice Gesmundo highlights AI-powered transcription success", "url": "https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/chief-justice-gesmundo-highlights-ai-powered-transcription-success-at-stenographers-convention/" }, { "label": "SC — SC adopts framework for the judiciary's use of AI (19 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-adopts-framework-for-judiciarys-use-of-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "NPC Advisory No. 2024-04 (19 December 2024) applies Republic Act 10173, its IRR and NPC issuances to AI systems processing personal data across development, training, testing and deployment. NPC Advisory No. 2026-01 covers scraping of publicly available personal data.", "documents": [ "ph-npc-advisory-2024-04-ai-systems" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NPC Advisory No. 2024-04 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.privacy.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Advisory-2024.12.19-Guidelines-on-Artificial-Intelligence-w-SGD.pdf" }, { "label": "NPC — advisories index", "url": "https://www.privacy.gov.ph/advisories/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No enacted AI statute. Senate Bill No. 25 of the 20th Congress (Cayetano) proposes risk-based AI regulation modelled on the EU AI Act; House Bill No. 3462 (Pleyto) would create a Philippine Artificial Intelligence Commission. Under Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the Constitution, regulation of the Bench and Bar is the Supreme Court's alone.", "documents": [ "ph-senate-bill-25-ai-regulation", "ph-house-bill-3462-ai-commission" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Senate Bill No. 25, 20th Congress (official PDF)", "url": "https://senate.gov.ph/legacy/lis_bills/4649942502!.pdf" }, { "label": "House Bill No. 3462, 20th Congress (official PDF)", "url": "https://docs.congress.hrep.online/legisdocs/basic_20/HB03462.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Thin and unpublished. In a Sandiganbayan Seventh Division minute resolution promulgated 7 August 2025 (People v Cunanan), counsel was reminded to fact-check AI-generated research and observe proper citations under the CPRA after non-existent authorities and wrong docket numbers appeared in AI-drafted motions. Warning only; no official URL, as minute resolutions are unpublished.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Press report of the Sandiganbayan resolution (no official text published)", "url": "https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2095751/fwd-sandiganbayan-reminds-fact-check-pleadings-crafted-with-the-help-ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI rules from the Philippine Dispute Resolution Center Inc., the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution, or the wider ADR framework; the PDRCI Arbitration Rules (2015) predate the issue.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "PDRCI — arbitration rules", "url": "https://pdrci.org/pdrci-arbitration-rules/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Framework directs PHILJA to run AI certificate training for the Bench and encourages the IBP to use continuing legal education for AI training; the AI Committee is to study AI competency standards. MCLE under Bar Matter No. 850 has no AI-specific unit requirement.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138" }, { "label": "MCLE Office", "url": "https://mcle.judiciary.gov.ph/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "Unusually strong. Vendors and third-party contractors are expressly within the Framework's scope; developers must disclose a tool's logic, limitations and safeguards, trade-secret claims limiting disclosure must be justified, and the AI Committee supervises procurement and may require ethical impact assessments, adversarial red-teaming and bug-bounty testing.", "documents": [ "ph-sc-am-25-11-28-ai-governance-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC (E-Library full text)", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "A.M. No. 25-11-28-SC — Governance Framework on the Use of Human-Centered Augmented Intelligence in the Judiciary (18 Feb 2026)", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/101138" }, { "label": "A.M. No. 25-04-04-SC — 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/100836" }, { "label": "A.M. No. 25-06-11-SC — 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel", "url": "https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/100842" }, { "label": "A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC — Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (contains no AI provision)", "url": "https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/22-09-01-SC-FINAL.pdf" }, { "label": "NPC Advisory No. 2024-04 — guidelines on the Data Privacy Act and AI systems", "url": "https://www.privacy.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Advisory-2024.12.19-Guidelines-on-Artificial-Intelligence-w-SGD.pdf" }, { "label": "Supreme Court — SC adopts framework for the judiciary's use of AI", "url": "https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-adopts-framework-for-judiciarys-use-of-artificial-intelligence/" } ] }, { "id": "pl", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/pl", "name": "Poland", "iso": "PL", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "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.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Polish Bar Council [Naczelna Rada Adwokacka]", "url": "https://www.adwokatura.pl/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "National Chamber of Legal Advisers [Krajowa Izba Radców Prawnych]", "url": "https://kirp.pl/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice [Ministerstwo Sprawiedliwości]", "url": "https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc", "role": "government" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Office [Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych, UODO]", "url": "https://uodo.gov.pl/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "pl-nra-ethics-code-ai-amendments", "pl-kirp-ai-recommendations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Naczelna Rada Adwokacka — amendments to the ethics code on AI", "url": "https://www.adwokatura.pl/z-zycia-nra/zmiany-w-zbiorze-zasad-etyki-adwokackiej-naczelna-rada-adwokacka-przyjela-nowe-regulacje-dotyczace-korzystania-ze-sztucznej-inteligencji-w-wykonywaniu-zawodu-adwokata/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Ministry of Justice — AI and technological innovation in the judiciary", "url": "https://www.gov.pl/web/sprawiedliwosc/nowoczesne-podejscie-do-sadownictwa-oparte-na-sztucznej-inteligencji-i-innowacjach-technologicznych" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "case-law", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Gazeta Prawna — court: ChatGPT is not evidence", "url": "https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/firma/artykuly/11188141,zlecil-chatowi-gpt-napisanie-pozwu-przegral-w-sadzie-znamy-uzasadnie.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "case-law", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Gazeta Prawna — ChatGPT is not evidence", "url": "https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/firma/artykuly/11188141,zlecil-chatowi-gpt-napisanie-pozwu-przegral-w-sadzie-znamy-uzasadnie.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "§ 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.", "documents": [ "pl-nra-ethics-code-ai-amendments", "pl-kirp-ai-recommendations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NRA — ethics code amendments on AI", "url": "https://www.adwokatura.pl/z-zycia-nra/zmiany-w-zbiorze-zasad-etyki-adwokackiej-naczelna-rada-adwokacka-przyjela-nowe-regulacje-dotyczace-korzystania-ze-sztucznej-inteligencji-w-wykonywaniu-zawodu-adwokata/" }, { "label": "KIRP — AI recommendations (PDF, April 2025)", "url": "https://kirp.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/REKOMENDACJE-DOTYCZACE-KORZYSTANIA-PRZEZ-RADCOW-PRAWNYCH-Z-NARZEDZI-OPARTYCH-NA-SZTUCZNEJ-INTELIGENCJI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "§ 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.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "pl-nra-ethics-code-ai-amendments", "pl-kirp-ai-recommendations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NRA — ethics code amendments on AI", "url": "https://www.adwokatura.pl/z-zycia-nra/zmiany-w-zbiorze-zasad-etyki-adwokackiej-naczelna-rada-adwokacka-przyjela-nowe-regulacje-dotyczace-korzystania-ze-sztucznej-inteligencji-w-wykonywaniu-zawodu-adwokata/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "pl-nra-ethics-code-ai-amendments", "pl-kirp-ai-recommendations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NRA — ethics code amendments on AI", "url": "https://www.adwokatura.pl/z-zycia-nra/zmiany-w-zbiorze-zasad-etyki-adwokackiej-naczelna-rada-adwokacka-przyjela-nowe-regulacje-dotyczace-korzystania-ze-sztucznej-inteligencji-w-wykonywaniu-zawodu-adwokata/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "pl-nra-ethics-code-ai-amendments", "pl-kirp-ai-recommendations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NRA — ethics code amendments on AI", "url": "https://www.adwokatura.pl/z-zycia-nra/zmiany-w-zbiorze-zasad-etyki-adwokackiej-naczelna-rada-adwokacka-przyjela-nowe-regulacje-dotyczace-korzystania-ze-sztucznej-inteligencji-w-wykonywaniu-zawodu-adwokata/" }, { "label": "KIRP — AI recommendations", "url": "https://kirp.pl/rekomendacje-dotyczace-korzystania-z-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "pl-kirp-ai-recommendations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "KIRP — AI recommendations", "url": "https://kirp.pl/rekomendacje-dotyczace-korzystania-z-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No Polish ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal-services products and unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "pl-nra-ethics-code-ai-amendments", "pl-kirp-ai-recommendations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NRA — ethics code amendments on AI", "url": "https://www.adwokatura.pl/z-zycia-nra/zmiany-w-zbiorze-zasad-etyki-adwokackiej-naczelna-rada-adwokacka-przyjela-nowe-regulacje-dotyczace-korzystania-ze-sztucznej-inteligencji-w-wykonywaniu-zawodu-adwokata/" }, { "label": "KIRP — AI recommendations (PDF)", "url": "https://kirp.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/REKOMENDACJE-DOTYCZACE-KORZYSTANIA-PRZEZ-RADCOW-PRAWNYCH-Z-NARZEDZI-OPARTYCH-NA-SZTUCZNEJ-INTELIGENCJI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Ministry of Justice — AI in the justice system portal", "url": "https://www.si-dla-sprawiedliwosci.gov.pl/sztuczna-inteligencja-w-sadownictwie/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Gazeta Prawna — ChatGPT-drafted claim dismissed", "url": "https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/firma/artykuly/11188141,zlecil-chatowi-gpt-napisanie-pozwu-przegral-w-sadzie-znamy-uzasadnie.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "The Lewiatan Court of Arbitration and the SA KIG had published no AI rules or guidelines as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "pl-kirp-ai-recommendations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NRA — AI training", "url": "https://www.adwokatura.pl/konferencje-i-szkolenia/wez-udzial-w-szkoleniu-prawo-a-sztuczna-inteligencja-regulacje-dotyczace-jej-wykorzystania-w-praktyce/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "pl-kirp-ai-recommendations" ], "sources": [ { "label": "KIRP — AI recommendations (PDF)", "url": "https://kirp.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/REKOMENDACJE-DOTYCZACE-KORZYSTANIA-PRZEZ-RADCOW-PRAWNYCH-Z-NARZEDZI-OPARTYCH-NA-SZTUCZNEJ-INTELIGENCJI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Naczelna Rada Adwokacka — AI amendments to the advocates' ethics code (12–13 June 2026)", "url": "https://www.adwokatura.pl/z-zycia-nra/zmiany-w-zbiorze-zasad-etyki-adwokackiej-naczelna-rada-adwokacka-przyjela-nowe-regulacje-dotyczace-korzystania-ze-sztucznej-inteligencji-w-wykonywaniu-zawodu-adwokata/" }, { "label": "KIRP — Recommendations on the use of AI-based tools by legal advisers (PDF)", "url": "https://kirp.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/REKOMENDACJE-DOTYCZACE-KORZYSTANIA-PRZEZ-RADCOW-PRAWNYCH-Z-NARZEDZI-OPARTYCH-NA-SZTUCZNEJ-INTELIGENCJI.pdf" }, { "label": "KIRP — AI recommendations landing page", "url": "https://kirp.pl/rekomendacje-dotyczace-korzystania-z-ai/" }, { "label": "Ministry of Justice — AI in the justice system", "url": "https://www.si-dla-sprawiedliwosci.gov.pl/sztuczna-inteligencja-w-sadownictwie/" }, { "label": "Gazeta Prawna — Wrocław court: ChatGPT output is not evidence", "url": "https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/firma/artykuly/11188141,zlecil-chatowi-gpt-napisanie-pozwu-przegral-w-sadzie-znamy-uzasadnie.html" } ] }, { "id": "pt", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/pt", "name": "Portugal", "iso": "PT", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Portugal's rules come from the judiciary rather than the bar: the High Council of the Judiciary adopted Recommendations on AI in judicial activity on 8 April 2026, requiring judges to declare AI use in decisions and to use only validated tools. The Guimaraes Court of Appeal censured a lawyer for six invented precedents.", "regulators": [ { "name": "High Council of the Judiciary (Conselho Superior da Magistratura)", "url": "https://csm.org.pt/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Portuguese Bar Association (Ordem dos Advogados)", "url": "https://portal.oa.pt/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "National Data Protection Commission (CNPD)", "url": "https://www.cnpd.pt/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "National Communications Authority (ANACOM)", "url": "https://www.anacom.pt/", "role": "AI Act authority" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requires parties or lawyers to disclose AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026; the CSM declaration duty applies to judges' decisions only.", "documents": [ "pt-csm-recomendacoes-uso-ia-atividade-jurisdicional" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The Guimaraes Court of Appeal on 10 February 2026 called citing six non-existent appellate and Supreme Court rulings absolutely inadmissible, stressed higher standards for legal professionals and suggested referral to the bar. For judges, CSM Recommendation 6 requires complete, critical personal review of any AI draft.", "documents": [ "pt-relacao-guimaraes-2026-acordaos-inexistentes", "pt-csm-recomendacoes-uso-ia-atividade-jurisdicional" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNN Portugal on the Guimaraes decision", "url": "https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/inteligencia-artificial/tribunal/relacao-de-guimaraes-acusa-advogado-de-citar-acordaos-que-so-existem-na-imaginacao-da-ia/20260303/69a6c222d34e28842c814a7c" }, { "label": "CSM Recommendations (official PDF)", "url": "https://csm.org.pt/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Recomendacoes_Uso_IA.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CSM Recommendations on the use of AI in judicial activity, approved by the Plenario on 8 April 2026: ten principles covering effective human control, non-substitution, judicial responsibility, independence, confidentiality, bias prevention, proportionality, training and transparency; only systems supplied by the case-management system or the CSM may be used.", "documents": [ "pt-csm-recomendacoes-uso-ia-atividade-jurisdicional", "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CSM Recommendations (official PDF)", "url": "https://csm.org.pt/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Recomendacoes_Uso_IA.pdf" }, { "label": "CSM announcement (official)", "url": "https://csm.org.pt/csm-aprova-recomendacoes-para-o-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-na-atividade-judicial/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CSM Recommendations, principle 2 and Recommendation 7: AI may never replace judges in deciding, evaluating facts or evidence, or interpreting and applying the law; AI-generated content must not enter decisions without full personal validation, and no profiling or risk-scoring beyond what the law authorises is permitted.", "documents": [ "pt-csm-recomendacoes-uso-ia-atividade-jurisdicional" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CSM Recommendations (official PDF)", "url": "https://csm.org.pt/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Recomendacoes_Uso_IA.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants on AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar rule or guidance on client data in AI tools as of 4 September 2026; commentary in April 2026 criticised the bar for issuing only generic communications. For judges, CSM Recommendations 8 and 9 bar judicial data in non-validated systems.", "documents": [ "pt-csm-recomendacoes-uso-ia-atividade-jurisdicional", "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ECO opinion on bar inaction (secondary)", "url": "https://eco.sapo.pt/opiniao/a-ordem-dos-advogados-esta-atrasada-na-inteligencia-artificial-e-essa-omissao-ja-viola-os-seus-proprios-deveres/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific competence rule for lawyers; the general duties in the bar statute apply. The bar ran a voluntary course on responsible AI in legal practice from September to November 2025 with more than two thousand registrations.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Bar course announcement (official)", "url": "https://portal.oa.pt/comunicacao/noticias/2025/09/formacao-oa-ia-responsavel-pratica-juridica/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted work by staff found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on informing clients about AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "The Portuguese Bar Association has published no generative-AI guidelines as of 4 September 2026; it offers training and links to EU material, and members rely on the CCBE guide.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ECO opinion on bar inaction (secondary)", "url": "https://eco.sapo.pt/opiniao/a-ordem-dos-advogados-esta-atrasada-na-inteligencia-artificial-e-essa-omissao-ja-viola-os-seus-proprios-deveres/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CSM Recommendations 4, 5 and 9: judges should use only AI systems provided through the statutory case-management system or by the CSM, which are subject to CSM control and presumed to meet security, traceability and no-reuse requirements. The CSM also approved an AI monitoring group and a supervision structure.", "documents": [ "pt-csm-recomendacoes-uso-ia-atividade-jurisdicional" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CSM Recommendations (official PDF)", "url": "https://csm.org.pt/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Recomendacoes_Uso_IA.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The data-protection commission is reported to have warned in May 2025 about personal data in AI training and to lead an international generative-AI working group, but no document specific to legal services was located. CSM Recommendation 9 sets GDPR principles for judges' AI use.", "documents": [ "pt-csm-recomendacoes-uso-ia-atividade-jurisdicional" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal 500 Portugal AI chapter (secondary)", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/portugal-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly and Portugal has no standalone national AI statute. Per Legal 500, ANACOM leads coordination among fourteen sectoral authorities designated under article 77. The CSM Recommendations cite Annex III point 8(a) to classify judicial AI as high risk.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "pt-csm-recomendacoes-uso-ia-atividade-jurisdicional" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal 500 Portugal AI chapter (secondary)", "url": "https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/portugal-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The Guimaraes Court of Appeal on 10 February 2026 ordered 5 UC in costs, about 500 euro, and suggested bar referral for six invented precedents. On the bench side, the CSM opened an inquiry in February 2025 into three Lisbon appeal judges over a judgment in which twelve of fourteen cited rulings did not exist.", "documents": [ "pt-relacao-guimaraes-2026-acordaos-inexistentes" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CNN Portugal on Guimaraes (secondary)", "url": "https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/inteligencia-artificial/tribunal/relacao-de-guimaraes-acusa-advogado-de-citar-acordaos-que-so-existem-na-imaginacao-da-ia/20260303/69a6c222d34e28842c814a7c" }, { "label": "ECO on the CSM inquiry (secondary)", "url": "https://eco.sapo.pt/2025/02/12/inteligencia-artificial-em-acordao-conselho-superior-decide-abrir-processo-disciplinar/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched because the research budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CSM principle 9: judges must receive training on AI in the administration of justice. Bar training is voluntary.", "documents": [ "pt-csm-recomendacoes-uso-ia-atividade-jurisdicional" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CSM Recommendations (official PDF)", "url": "https://csm.org.pt/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Recomendacoes_Uso_IA.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "CSM Recommendation 9: AI systems used by judges must embed security, access control, traceability and no-reuse measures, and systems supplied or validated by the CSM are presumed compliant. There is no vendor guidance for lawyers beyond the CCBE technical guide.", "documents": [ "pt-csm-recomendacoes-uso-ia-atividade-jurisdicional", "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CSM Recommendations (official PDF)", "url": "https://csm.org.pt/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Recomendacoes_Uso_IA.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "CSM Recomendacoes no uso de inteligencia artificial (PDF)", "url": "https://csm.org.pt/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Recomendacoes_Uso_IA.pdf" }, { "label": "CSM announcement of the recommendations", "url": "https://csm.org.pt/csm-aprova-recomendacoes-para-o-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-na-atividade-judicial/" }, { "label": "CNN Portugal: Relacao de Guimaraes, February 2026", "url": "https://cnnportugal.iol.pt/inteligencia-artificial/tribunal/relacao-de-guimaraes-acusa-advogado-de-citar-acordaos-que-so-existem-na-imaginacao-da-ia/20260303/69a6c222d34e28842c814a7c" }, { "label": "ECO: CSM inquiry into a Lisbon appeal judgment", "url": "https://eco.sapo.pt/2025/02/12/inteligencia-artificial-em-acordao-conselho-superior-decide-abrir-processo-disciplinar/" }, { "label": "ECO: judges obliged to reveal AI use", "url": "https://eco.sapo.pt/2026/04/13/juizes-obrigados-a-revelar-o-uso-de-inteligencia-artificial-nas-decisoes-judiciais/" } ] }, { "id": "pr", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/pr", "name": "Puerto Rico", "iso": "PR", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Puerto Rico has no verified territory-specific rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Federal cases proceed under U.S. federal court rules, but no District of Puerto Rico AI order, Puerto Rico Supreme Court guidance or Colegio de Abogados AI guidance was found.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Puerto Rico Judicial Branch", "url": "https://poderjudicial.pr/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de Puerto Rico", "url": "https://capr.org/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "United States Courts", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/", "role": "federal judiciary" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No District of Puerto Rico or Puerto Rico court AI disclosure/certification rule found; federal cases follow U.S. federal court rules.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "U.S. Courts: court role and structure", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Puerto Rico Supreme Court or District of Puerto Rico AI-use guidance for judges was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de Puerto Rico found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "Puerto Rico courts operate the Tribunal Electronico/SUMAC portal; no court AI deployment policy was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Puerto Rico Judicial Branch", "url": "https://poderjudicial.pr/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific guidance from a data-protection authority relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Puerto Rico Judicial Branch", "url": "https://poderjudicial.pr/" }, { "label": "Colegio de Abogados y Abogadas de Puerto Rico", "url": "https://capr.org/" }, { "label": "U.S. Courts: court role and structure", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure" } ] }, { "id": "qa", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/qa", "name": "Qatar", "iso": "QA", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "Qatar's only AI rule for legal practice sits in the Qatar Financial Centre. QICDRC Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 (6 January 2026) and its accompanying practice guidance require verification of AI-assisted material and permit the court to require disclosure, following the QFC court's contempt finding in Sheppard v Jillion (12 Nov 2025). Onshore courts have no rule.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC)", "url": "https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa", "role": "court (Qatar Financial Centre)" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.qa", "role": "justice ministry and licensor of lawyers (onshore)" }, { "name": "Supreme Judiciary Council", "url": "https://www.sjc.gov.qa", "role": "judiciary (onshore)" }, { "name": "Ministry of Communications and Information Technology", "url": "https://www.mcit.gov.qa", "role": "AI policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "gulf", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "QICDRC Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 (in force 6 Jan 2026) allows the court to require disclosure of how AI was used in preparing documents in QFC court proceedings. No onshore rule.", "documents": [ "qicdrc-practice-direction-1-2026-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "QICDRC — Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 (official)", "url": "https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa/media-center/news/qicdrc-issues-practice-direction-no-1-2026-and-practice-guidance-use-artificial" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "The same practice direction requires comprehensive verification and certification of the accuracy of all sources before submission when AI tools are used; parties and representatives remain responsible for fabricated or inaccurate material.", "documents": [ "qicdrc-practice-direction-1-2026-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "QICDRC — Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 (official)", "url": "https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa/media-center/news/qicdrc-issues-practice-direction-no-1-2026-and-practice-guidance-use-artificial" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published guidance on judges' or court staff's use of AI. In June 2026 UNESCO and the Supreme Judiciary Council ran a four-day AI and rule-of-law training for 34 judges and senior legal officials, but no rule followed.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "UNESCO — judicial training on AI and the rule of law, Arab region (official)", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/judicial-professionals-arab-region-trained-artificial-intelligence-and-rule-law" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No separate guidance for self-represented litigants; the QICDRC practice direction binds parties generally, whether represented or not.", "documents": [ "qicdrc-practice-direction-1-2026-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator or bar guidance restricting client data in AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No competence rule naming AI or technology found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No supervision duty naming AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients of or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "Qatar has no independent bar association; lawyers are licensed by the Ministry of Justice, which has published no generative-AI guidance for practitioners as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published policy on the courts' own AI deployment. The Ministry of Justice has publicised AI ambitions for the justice system since September 2023 and publishes AI research in its Journal of Judicial and Legal Studies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The Personal Data Privacy Protection Law (Law No. 13 of 2016) applies, but no AI-specific data-protection guidance relevant to legal services was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute and no draft AI law. The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, implemented through the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, takes a non-binding, risk-based and sector-specific approach.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "In Sheppard v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (E) 3 (12 Nov 2025) the QFC Civil and Commercial Court, per Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, found a Dubai-based lawyer in contempt under Article 35 for citing two non-existent QFC authorities and persisting after challenge, imposing no penal sanction but publishing the judgment.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Sheppard v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (E) 3 (official judgment)", "url": "https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa/judgments/ctfic00332025" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI rules or guidance from the Qatar International Centre for Conciliation and Arbitration (QICCA) found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training requirement. The June 2026 UNESCO/Supreme Judiciary Council judicial training was a voluntary programme.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on procuring and contracting legal AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [ { "name": "Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) / QICDRC", "code": "QA-QFC", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026: the court may require disclosure of how AI was used in preparing documents.", "documents": [ "qicdrc-practice-direction-1-2026-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 and accompanying practice guidance: comprehensive verification and certification of all cited sources before submission.", "documents": [ "qicdrc-practice-direction-1-2026-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Sheppard v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (E) 3 — contempt finding for fabricated citations; the practice direction followed two months later.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Sheppard v Jillion LLC (official)", "url": "https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa/judgments/ctfic00332025" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Common-law commercial jurisdiction with its own courts. All of Qatar's AI-in-litigation rules and case law sit here; onshore Qatari courts have none." } ], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "QICDRC — Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 and Practice Guidance on the Use of Artificial Intelligence", "url": "https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa/media-center/news/qicdrc-issues-practice-direction-no-1-2026-and-practice-guidance-use-artificial" }, { "label": "Sheppard v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (E) 3 (QFC Civil and Commercial Court, 12 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa/judgments/ctfic00332025" }, { "label": "UNESCO — Judicial professionals from the Arab region trained on AI and the rule of law (June 2026)", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/judicial-professionals-arab-region-trained-artificial-intelligence-and-rule-law" }, { "label": "UNESCO — Three lessons for courts navigating AI: insights from Qatar", "url": "https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/three-lessons-courts-navigating-ai-insights-qatar" } ] }, { "id": "ro", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ro", "name": "Romania", "iso": "RO", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 no UNBR generative-AI guidance, CSM judiciary AI policy or reported hallucinated-citation case could be confirmed; unbr.ro returned HTTP 403 and the CSM and ANSPDCP homepages showed no AI material. Directly applicable EU law — AI Act Art. 4 literacy and the Annex III point 8(a) high-risk classification deferred to 2 Dec 2027 — is the operative layer.", "regulators": [ { "name": "National Union of Romanian Bars [Uniunea Națională a Barourilor din România, UNBR]", "url": "https://unbr.ro/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Superior Council of Magistracy [Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii, CSM]", "url": "https://www.csm1909.ro/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "High Court of Cassation and Justice [Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție, ÎCCJ]", "url": "https://www.scj.ro/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "National Supervisory Authority for Personal Data Processing [Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal, ANSPDCP]", "url": "https://www.dataprotection.ro/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no UNBR or court statement on a duty to verify AI output could be confirmed; unbr.ro returned HTTP 403 on 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The CSM homepage was checked on 4 September 2026 and showed no AI item, but deeper sections (hotărâri, digitalisation commission) could not be searched. No judiciary AI guidance confirmed either way.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CSM — official site", "url": "https://www.csm1909.ro/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Romania as a Council of Europe member but is not a domestic instrument.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no UNBR guidance on client data in AI tools could be confirmed. Professional secrecy under Law 51/1995 and the Statute of the Profession applies generally but does not name AI.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "EU AI Act Art. 4 AI literacy duty applies directly to Romanian law firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025. No domestic competence rule naming AI was confirmed.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched. Romania actively polices unauthorised practice through UNBR litigation against parallel 'bars', but no AI-specific ruling could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "unbr.ro returned HTTP 403 on 4 September 2026 and could not be inspected; no UNBR Council decision or guidance on generative AI could be confirmed or excluded.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no policy on the Romanian courts' institutional AI deployment could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The ANSPDCP homepage was checked on 4 September 2026 and showed no dedicated AI guidance or news; deeper sections could not be searched, so absence is not established.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ANSPDCP — official site", "url": "https://www.dataprotection.ro/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "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. Romania's designated national supervisory authorities were not verified in this session.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2026/1744", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj/eng" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No Romanian court sanction or disciplinary decision for hallucinated citations was found, but no case-law search was possible. Absence is not established.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no rule of the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Romanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "EU AI Act Art. 4 literacy duty applies to Romanian firms as deployers since 2 Feb 2025. Romania has mandatory continuing professional training for lawyers via INPPA, but no AI-specific requirement was confirmed.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's WebSearch budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "CSM — Consiliul Superior al Magistraturii", "url": "https://www.csm1909.ro/" }, { "label": "ANSPDCP — Romanian data protection authority", "url": "https://www.dataprotection.ro/" } ] }, { "id": "ru", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ru", "name": "Russia", "iso": "RU", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Russia has a new federal AI law on sovereign and national AI models and a 2030 National AI Strategy, but no court, Supreme Court or Federal Chamber of Lawyers guidance on AI in legal practice was located. Synthetic-content labelling is not an evidence or filing rule.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation", "url": "https://fparf.ru/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of the Russian Federation", "url": "https://www.vsrf.ru/en/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Roskomnadzor", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "National AI portal", "url": "https://ai.gov.ru/", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "The 2026 AI law and reporting address synthetic-content labelling and AI-model governance, not authentication or admissibility of AI-generated evidence in court.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Meduza — State Duma passes AI legislation", "url": "https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/07/08/russia-s-state-duma-passes-law-regulating-ai-requiring-respect-for-traditional-russian-values" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Federal Chamber of Lawyers guidance, ethics opinion or rule on generative AI use by advocates was located as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Russia's personal-data and information laws are cited in the National AI Strategy, but no Roskomnadzor or legal-sector AI processing guidance for lawyers was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kremlin — Presidential Decree No. 490 national AI strategy, amended 2024", "url": "http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/44731" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "Federal Law No. 243-FZ was officially published on 26 July 2026 and, according to secondary reporting, regulates sovereign and national AI models. The 2030 National AI Strategy remains the broader state policy framework.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Official publication portal — Federal Law No. 243-FZ, 26 July 2026", "url": "http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202607260003" }, { "label": "Meduza — State Duma passes AI legislation", "url": "https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/07/08/russia-s-state-duma-passes-law-regulating-ai-requiring-respect-for-traditional-russian-values" }, { "label": "Kremlin — Presidential Decree No. 490 national AI strategy, amended 2024", "url": "http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/44731" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Official publication portal — Federal Law No. 243-FZ, 26 July 2026", "url": "http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/document/0001202607260003" }, { "label": "Meduza — State Duma passes AI legislation", "url": "https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/07/08/russia-s-state-duma-passes-law-regulating-ai-requiring-respect-for-traditional-russian-values" }, { "label": "Kremlin — Presidential Decree No. 490 national AI strategy, amended 2024", "url": "http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/44731" }, { "label": "AI Alliance — AI Ethics Code", "url": "https://a-ai.ru/ethics_EN/index.html" } ] }, { "id": "rw", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/rw", "name": "Rwanda", "iso": "RW", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Rwanda has no filing, bar or court protocol specifically governing lawyers’ use of AI. Its National AI Policy guides cross-sector responsible AI adoption, and the Ministry of Justice has hosted AI, data protection and rule-of-law training for judicial operators, but no binding legal-practice rule was located.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Rwanda Bar Association", "url": "https://rwandabar.rw/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Rwanda Judiciary", "url": "https://www.judiciary.gov.rw/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.minijust.gov.rw/news-detail/ai-data-protection-and-the-rule-of-law-2-day-training-for-judicial-operators-in-rwanda", "role": "ministry" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Ministry of Justice’s April training page says judicial operators received tools and guidance/perspectives on responsible AI in justice-sector contexts, based on UNESCO’s AI and Rule of Law toolkit. No binding court rule was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Rwanda Ministry of Justice — AI, Data Protection and the Rule of Law training", "url": "https://www.minijust.gov.rw/news-detail/ai-data-protection-and-the-rule-of-law-2-day-training-for-judicial-operators-in-rwanda" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Rwanda has general data-protection law and justice-sector AI training, but no data-protection authority guidance specifically applying data rules to legal AI was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Rwanda Ministry of Justice — AI, Data Protection and the Rule of Law training", "url": "https://www.minijust.gov.rw/news-detail/ai-data-protection-and-the-rule-of-law-2-day-training-for-judicial-operators-in-rwanda" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Rwanda’s National AI Policy is a cross-sector roadmap for responsible AI, trusted data, public-sector transformation, private-sector adoption and AI skills. It is non-binding and does not prescribe legal-practice rules.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ICTworks — Introducing the National AI Policy for Rwanda", "url": "https://www.ictworks.org/national-artificial-intelligence-policy-rwanda/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "The Ministry of Justice training gathered judges, prosecutors, attorneys and judicial operators, but no mandatory AI training or CLE requirement was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Rwanda Ministry of Justice — AI, Data Protection and the Rule of Law training", "url": "https://www.minijust.gov.rw/news-detail/ai-data-protection-and-the-rule-of-law-2-day-training-for-judicial-operators-in-rwanda" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "ICTworks — Introducing the National AI Policy for Rwanda", "url": "https://www.ictworks.org/national-artificial-intelligence-policy-rwanda/" }, { "label": "Rwanda Ministry of Justice — AI, Data Protection and the Rule of Law training", "url": "https://www.minijust.gov.rw/news-detail/ai-data-protection-and-the-rule-of-law-2-day-training-for-judicial-operators-in-rwanda" }, { "label": "Rwanda Bar Association", "url": "https://rwandabar.rw/" }, { "label": "Rwanda Judiciary", "url": "https://www.judiciary.gov.rw/" } ] }, { "id": "sa", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/sa", "name": "Saudi Arabia", "iso": "SA", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "religious-mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Saudi Arabia governs AI through non-binding SDAIA policy rather than law, and nothing addresses legal practice specifically. SDAIA's AI Ethics Principles (Sept 2023), Generative AI Guidelines for Government and for the Public, AI Adoption Framework and Deepfakes Guidelines apply horizontally. No court rule, bar guidance or reported AI-citation case.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Saudi Data and Artificial Intelligence Authority (SDAIA)", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/default.aspx", "role": "AI regulator and data protection authority" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.sa/English/Pages/default.aspx", "role": "justice ministry (Najiz platform, courts administration)" }, { "name": "Saudi Bar Association", "url": "https://sba.gov.sa", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA)", "url": "https://sadr.org/en", "role": "arbitral institution" } ], "jurisdiction": "gulf", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or circular requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-practice-specific verification duty. SDAIA's Generative AI Guidelines recommend human-in-the-loop review and fact-checking of generative output for all users, but are non-binding and not addressed to litigation.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "SDAIA — Generative AI Guidelines for the Public (official PDF)", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/about/Files/GenerativeAIPublicEN.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published guidance for judges or court staff on using AI as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing or bail decisions found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule on AI-generated or deepfake material. SDAIA's Deepfakes Guidelines address detection and developer obligations but are not rules of evidence and are not addressed to courts.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "SDAIA — Deepfakes Guidelines (official PDF)", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/eParticipation/consulting/SDAIADeepfakesGuidelinesEn.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or regulator guidance restricting client data in AI tools. SDAIA's generative-AI guidelines contain generic data-handling rules for government and public users.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No competence rule naming AI or technology for Saudi lawyers found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients of or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal services; the Code of Law Practice reserves representation to licensed lawyers.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance for practitioners published by the Saudi Bar Association or the Ministry of Justice as of 4 September 2026. Practitioners are directed to SDAIA's horizontal instruments.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SDAIA's Generative AI Guidelines for Government apply to government entities including the Ministry of Justice, requiring transparency, human oversight and risk management. The ministry operates the Najiz portal (140+ judicial e-services) and a virtual enforcement court launched March 2022; no court-specific AI policy is published.", "documents": [ "sa-sdaia-ai-ethics-principles", "sa-sdaia-generative-ai-guidelines-government" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SDAIA — Generative AI Guidelines for Government (official PDF)", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/about/Files/GenAIGuidelinesForGovernmentENCompressed.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Personal Data Protection Law, enforced by SDAIA, applies to AI processing of personal data by law firms and courts; SDAIA is simultaneously the data-protection authority and the AI regulator. No legal-sector-specific AI guidance.", "documents": [ "sa-sdaia-ai-ethics-principles" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SDAIA (official)", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/default.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No AI statute and no draft AI law before the Shura Council. SDAIA's AI Ethics Principles (v1.0, September 2023) apply a risk-based classification to AI systems across sectors, and the AI Adoption Framework (2024, updated 2025) sets maturity levels; both are non-binding.", "documents": [ "sa-sdaia-ai-ethics-principles", "sa-sdaia-generative-ai-guidelines-public" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SDAIA — AI Ethics Principles (official PDF)", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/about/Documents/ai-principles.pdf" }, { "label": "SDAIA — AI Adoption Framework (official PDF)", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/about/Files/AIAdoptionFramework.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported Saudi court decision sanctioning fabricated AI citations found as of 4 September 2026. Saudi judgments are not systematically published, so absence of reports is weak evidence.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "The SCCA Arbitration Rules (2nd edition, in force 1 May 2023) contain no AI provision, and no SCCA AI guideline was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "SCCA — 2023 Arbitration Rules (official)", "url": "https://sadr.org/en/arbitration-rules/2023-arbitration-rules" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or CLE requirement for Saudi lawyers or judges found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector vendor due-diligence rule. SDAIA's AI Adoption Framework addresses governance and responsible-use enablers generally.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "SDAIA — AI Ethics Principles", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/about/Documents/ai-principles.pdf" }, { "label": "SDAIA — Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidelines for Government", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/about/Files/GenAIGuidelinesForGovernmentENCompressed.pdf" }, { "label": "SDAIA — Generative Artificial Intelligence Guidelines for the Public", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/about/Files/GenerativeAIPublicEN.pdf" }, { "label": "SDAIA — AI Adoption Framework", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/about/Files/AIAdoptionFramework.pdf" }, { "label": "SDAIA — Deepfakes Guidelines", "url": "https://sdaia.gov.sa/en/SDAIA/eParticipation/consulting/SDAIADeepfakesGuidelinesEn.pdf" }, { "label": "Saudi Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.sa/English/Pages/default.aspx" } ] }, { "id": "sn", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/sn", "name": "Senegal", "iso": "SN", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Senegal has no legal-practice AI rule or court/bar guidance located. The 2023 National AI Strategy and Road Map to 2028 is a non-binding framework for trustworthy AI, regulatory sandboxes, impact assessments and a future ethics body; CDP data-protection oversight remains general.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Ordre des avocats du Sénégal", "url": "https://www.ordredesavocats.sn/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://justice.sec.gouv.sn/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Commission de Protection des Données Personnelles (CDP)", "url": "https://www.cdp.sn/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The CDP is Senegal’s data-protection authority, but no CDP guidance applying data-protection law to AI or legal-service AI processing was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Commission de Protection des Données Personnelles", "url": "https://www.cdp.sn/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Senegal’s National AI Strategy and Road Map to 2028, published in 2023, plans trustworthy AI, regulatory sandboxes, high-risk impact assessments, compliance nomenclatures, an AI governance body and national ethics committee. It is non-binding.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — Senegal National AI Strategy and Road Map", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/senegal-national-artificial-intelligence-strategy-and-road-map" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — Senegal National AI Strategy and Road Map", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/senegal-national-artificial-intelligence-strategy-and-road-map" }, { "label": "Ordre des avocats du Sénégal", "url": "https://www.ordredesavocats.sn/" }, { "label": "Senegal Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://justice.sec.gouv.sn/" }, { "label": "Commission de Protection des Données Personnelles", "url": "https://www.cdp.sn/" } ] }, { "id": "rs", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/rs", "name": "Serbia", "iso": "RS", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Serbia has no dedicated AI law, court rule, bar guidance or reported hallucinated-citation case for legal practice. AI governance rests on national AI strategies for 2020-2025 and 2025-2030, the voluntary 2023 Ethical Guidelines, existing data-protection law and preparations for future EU-aligned regulation.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Bar Association of Serbia [Адвокатска комора Србије]", "url": "https://aks.org.rs/en/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Serbia", "url": "https://www.vk.sud.rs/en", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://poverenik.rs/en/home/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Office for IT and eGovernment / National AI Platform", "url": "https://www.ai.gov.rs/", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Serbian Bar Association rule, ethics opinion or guidance on generative AI use by lawyers was located as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "Serbia operates a National AI Platform for development and public-sector use, but no published court AI deployment policy or judicial guidance was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "National AI Platform of Serbia", "url": "https://www.ai.gov.rs/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Serbia's GDPR-aligned Personal Data Protection Law applies generally. No Commissioner guidance specifically addressing AI processing in legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in Serbia", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/serbia" }, { "label": "Commissioner for Information and Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://poverenik.rs/en/home/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Serbia has no dedicated AI law in force. CMS identifies the 2020-2025 and 2025-2030 AI strategies and 2023 Ethical Guidelines as non-binding horizontal policy; no formal public AI-law procedure was reported in February 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in Serbia", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/serbia" }, { "label": "Serbian Government — AI Strategy 2025-2030", "url": "https://www.srbija.gov.rs/tekst/437277" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "CMS Expert Guide — AI laws and regulation in Serbia", "url": "https://cms.law/en/int/expert-guides/ai-regulation-scanner/serbia" }, { "label": "Serbian Government — AI Strategy 2025-2030", "url": "https://www.srbija.gov.rs/tekst/437277" }, { "label": "National AI Platform of Serbia", "url": "https://www.ai.gov.rs/" }, { "label": "Commissioner for Information and Personal Data Protection", "url": "https://poverenik.rs/en/home/" } ] }, { "id": "sg", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/sg", "name": "Singapore", "iso": "SG", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "Singapore's posture is permissive-but-accountable. A 2024 Registrar's Circular lets court users use generative AI without declaring it, provided they take full responsibility and verify; the Ministry of Law issued a sector guide in March 2026 and the Law Society an advisory in April 2026. Enforcement comes from the High Court's repeated personal costs orders.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Singapore (Registrar), with the State Courts and Family Justice Courts", "url": "https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Ministry of Law (MinLaw)", "url": "https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/", "role": "government" }, { "name": "Law Society of Singapore", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.org.sg/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC)", "url": "https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/", "role": "data protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "singapore", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "Deliberately no declaration requirement. Registrar's Circular No. 1 of 2024 (issued 23 September 2024, effective 1 October 2024, mirrored by the State Courts and Family Justice Courts) says court users need not pre-emptively declare generative-AI use, but must answer if the court asks and remain fully responsible for the content filed.", "documents": [ "sg-registrar-circular-1-2024-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Singapore Courts — Guide on the use of generative AI tools by court users (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/docs/default-source/news-and-resources-docs/guide-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-tools-by-court-users.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "The court guide makes the user responsible for all filed content including verifying citations, and warns that personal costs orders may follow the citation of non-existent authorities, a warning the High Court has since made good repeatedly. The Law Society advisory requires verification against primary sources.", "documents": [ "sg-registrar-circular-1-2024-generative-ai", "sg-law-society-advisory-public-ai-tools" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Singapore Courts — Guide on the use of generative AI tools by court users (PDF)", "url": "https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/docs/default-source/news-and-resources-docs/guide-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-tools-by-court-users.pdf" }, { "label": "Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo [2026] SGHC 49", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026_SGHC_49" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. The 2024 Registrar's Circular is addressed to court users, not judges, and no separate Singapore judiciary guidance for judges or court staff was located before the session search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No Singapore instrument barring AI from adjudicative reasoning was located; the court guide does not address judicial decision-making.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "binding", "note": "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.", "documents": [ "sg-registrar-circular-1-2024-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Singapore Courts — Guide on the use of generative AI tools by court users (PDF)", "url": "https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/docs/default-source/news-and-resources-docs/guide-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-tools-by-court-users.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The court guide prohibits using generative AI to fabricate or alter evidence, and the MinLaw guide treats court documents as a high-risk use requiring human review. The Evidence Act 1893 has no AI-specific or deepfake authentication provision.", "documents": [ "sg-registrar-circular-1-2024-generative-ai", "sg-minlaw-generative-ai-guide-legal-sector" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Singapore Courts — Guide on the use of generative AI tools by court users (PDF)", "url": "https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/docs/default-source/news-and-resources-docs/guide-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-tools-by-court-users.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Law Society's Advisory on the Use of Publicly Available AI Tools (2 April 2026) says client information must not be entered into tools that may retain or train on it. The MinLaw guide applies confidentiality and PDPA obligations to anything entered into a tool.", "documents": [ "sg-law-society-advisory-public-ai-tools", "sg-minlaw-generative-ai-guide-legal-sector" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Law Society of Singapore — Advisory on the use of publicly available AI tools (PDF, 2 Apr 2026)", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Law-Societys-Advisory-on-the-Use-of-Publicly-Available-AI-Tools-2-April-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No amendment to the Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015. Competence is addressed through the MinLaw guide's professional-ethics principles and the Law Society advisory, which both make lawyers professionally responsible for AI-assisted work.", "documents": [ "sg-minlaw-generative-ai-guide-legal-sector", "sg-law-society-advisory-public-ai-tools" ], "sources": [ { "label": "MinLaw — Guide for using generative AI in the legal sector (PDF, 6 Mar 2026)", "url": "https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/files/Guide_for_using_Generative_AI_in_the_Legal_Sector__Published_on_6_Mar_2026_.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Singapore has the leading supervision-chain authority. In Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo [2026] SGHC 49 (6 March 2026) S Mohan J made S$5,000 personal costs orders against both the counsel on record and the supervising solicitor who reviewed the draft, rejecting a workload-and-supervision defence. The MinLaw guide requires human-in-the-loop review of high-risk tasks.", "documents": [ "sg-minlaw-generative-ai-guide-legal-sector" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo [2026] SGHC 49 (eLitigation)", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026_SGHC_49" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The MinLaw guide tells firms to be transparent with clients about material AI use. There is no consent requirement and no court-side obligation to inform clients.", "documents": [ "sg-minlaw-generative-ai-guide-legal-sector" ], "sources": [ { "label": "MinLaw — Guide for using generative AI in the legal sector (PDF)", "url": "https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/files/Guide_for_using_Generative_AI_in_the_Legal_Sector__Published_on_6_Mar_2026_.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No Singapore ethics ruling or guidance on charging for AI-assisted work was located, though the High Court has ordered that AI-related personal costs must not be passed on to the client (Goh Chin Cheng v Choco Up SG Pte Ltd, 4 May 2026; Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul, 29 September 2025).", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AI Hallucination Cases database — Singapore filter", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/?states=Singapore" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. The Legal Profession Act 1966 reserves legal work to regulated persons, but no Singapore determination applying it to consumer AI legal products was located before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Two instruments in 2026: MinLaw's Guide for Using Generative AI in the Legal Sector (6 March 2026) for law practices adopting AI, and the Law Society's Advisory on the Use of Publicly Available AI Tools (2 April 2026) for consumer chatbots. Both are non-binding but track the professional conduct rules.", "documents": [ "sg-minlaw-generative-ai-guide-legal-sector", "sg-law-society-advisory-public-ai-tools" ], "sources": [ { "label": "MinLaw — Guide for using generative AI in the legal sector (PDF)", "url": "https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/files/Guide_for_using_Generative_AI_in_the_Legal_Sector__Published_on_6_Mar_2026_.pdf" }, { "label": "Law Society of Singapore — Advisory on publicly available AI tools (PDF)", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Law-Societys-Advisory-on-the-Use-of-Publicly-Available-AI-Tools-2-April-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No published policy on the Singapore Judiciary's own institutional AI deployment was located; the judiciary's news and registrar's-circular indexes are JavaScript-driven and could not be searched after the session search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The PDPC's Advisory Guidelines on Use of Personal Data in AI Recommendation and Decision Systems (issued 1 March 2024) apply the PDPA to AI development, testing, deployment and procurement, covering the business-improvement and research exceptions, consent and notification, and vendor obligations.", "documents": [ "sg-pdpc-advisory-guidelines-ai-recommendation-decision-systems" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PDPC — Advisory Guidelines on use of personal data in AI recommendation and decision systems (official PDF, 1 Mar 2024)", "url": "https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/files/pdpc/pdf-files/advisory-guidelines/advisory-guidelines-on-the-use-of-personal-data-in-ai-recommendation-and-decision-systems.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute and no risk classification of justice or legal uses. Singapore regulates AI through existing law plus voluntary frameworks and sectoral advisory guidelines such as the PDPC's 2024 AI advisory guidelines.", "documents": [ "sg-pdpc-advisory-guidelines-ai-recommendation-decision-systems" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PDPC — regulatory guidance index", "url": "https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/guidelines-and-consultation" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Seven reported decisions and the region's most consistent use of money sanctions. Tan Hai Peng [2026] SGHC 49 (S$10,000 across two practitioners); Tajudin bin Gulam Rasul (S$800 personal costs plus an order to inform the client, 29 September 2025); Goh Chin Cheng v Choco Up SG (S$900, not to be passed to the client, 4 May 2026); adverse costs of S$30,000 and S$18,947 against litigants.", "documents": [ "sg-registrar-circular-1-2024-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo [2026] SGHC 49", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026_SGHC_49" }, { "label": "AI Hallucination Cases database — Singapore filter (7 cases)", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/?states=Singapore" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No SIAC, SIMC or SIArb generative-AI protocol was located before the search budget was exhausted; the 2024 court guide governs court proceedings only.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. No mandatory AI component in the Singapore Institute of Legal Education CPD scheme was located; the MinLaw guide encourages firms to train staff before deployment but does not mandate it.", "documents": [ "sg-minlaw-generative-ai-guide-legal-sector" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The MinLaw guide asks practices to adopt AI governance policies and assess tools before deployment; the Law Society advisory warns against tools that may retain or train on client information; the PDPC advisory guidelines address obligations when procuring AI systems that process personal data.", "documents": [ "sg-minlaw-generative-ai-guide-legal-sector", "sg-law-society-advisory-public-ai-tools", "sg-pdpc-advisory-guidelines-ai-recommendation-decision-systems" ], "sources": [ { "label": "PDPC — Advisory Guidelines on use of personal data in AI systems (PDF)", "url": "https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/files/pdpc/pdf-files/advisory-guidelines/advisory-guidelines-on-the-use-of-personal-data-in-ai-recommendation-and-decision-systems.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Singapore Courts — Registrar's Circular No. 1 of 2024, Guide on the use of generative AI tools by court users (PDF)", "url": "https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/docs/default-source/news-and-resources-docs/guide-on-the-use-of-generative-ai-tools-by-court-users.pdf" }, { "label": "Ministry of Law — Guide for using generative AI in the legal sector (6 Mar 2026, PDF)", "url": "https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/files/Guide_for_using_Generative_AI_in_the_Legal_Sector__Published_on_6_Mar_2026_.pdf" }, { "label": "Law Society of Singapore — Advisory on the use of publicly available AI tools (2 Apr 2026, PDF)", "url": "https://www.lawsociety.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Law-Societys-Advisory-on-the-Use-of-Publicly-Available-AI-Tools-2-April-2026.pdf" }, { "label": "PDPC — Advisory Guidelines on use of personal data in AI recommendation and decision systems (1 Mar 2024, PDF)", "url": "https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/files/pdpc/pdf-files/advisory-guidelines/advisory-guidelines-on-the-use-of-personal-data-in-ai-recommendation-and-decision-systems.pdf" }, { "label": "Tan Hai Peng Micheal v Tan Cheong Joo [2026] SGHC 49", "url": "https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2026_SGHC_49" } ] }, { "id": "sk", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/sk", "name": "Slovakia", "iso": "SK", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Slovakia has the strictest binding legal-AI regime among the Visegrád states. The Slovak Bar Association's Presidium Resolution 12/4/2025 (in force 1 May 2025), amended by Resolution 21/14/2025 with a detailed methodological guidance (in force 25 Nov 2025), sets binding rules on confidentiality, three permitted deployment modes, verification, vendor due diligence and billing, enforceable through bar discipline.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Slovak Bar Association [Slovenská advokátska komora, SAK]", "url": "https://www.sak.sk/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic [Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky]", "url": "https://www.nsud.sk/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice [Ministerstvo spravodlivosti Slovenskej republiky]", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.sk/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Office for Personal Data Protection [Úrad na ochranu osobných údajov Slovenskej republiky]", "url": "https://dataprotection.gov.sk/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no Slovak court rule requiring parties to disclose or certify AI use in filings could be checked without search access. The Supreme Court in 4CdoNa/3/2026 inferred AI use rather than requiring its declaration.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Resolution 12/4/2025 Art. 3(2): the lawyer retains full responsibility for AI outputs used. Guidance Art. 3(3): relying on AI output without human review is impermissible; the lawyer must actively verify facts, literature and case citations, legislation and legal conclusions to avoid 'hallucinations'.", "documents": [ "sk-sak-uznesenie-12-4-2025-ai-rules" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 as amended (Vestník SAK čiastka 87, PDF)", "url": "https://sak.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Uznesenie_12-4-2025_plne-znenie-k-25-11-2025-ff2a4b92.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no Ministerstvo spravodlivosti or Najvyšší súd guideline on judges' use of generative AI could be checked without search access.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched. CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies to Slovakia as a Council of Europe member but is not a domestic instrument.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's web-search budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the session's web-search budget was exhausted before this category could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "Resolution Art. 4 forbids entering confidential information or personal data into AI tools except in three modes: (a) a local tool wholly under the lawyer's control, (b) express informed client consent, or (c) a GDPR Art. 28 processor with contractual confidentiality. Guidance Art. 4 sets a mandatory three-question decision test.", "documents": [ "sk-sak-uznesenie-12-4-2025-ai-rules" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 as amended (PDF)", "url": "https://sak.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Uznesenie_12-4-2025_plne-znenie-k-25-11-2025-ff2a4b92.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Resolution Art. 5 obliges lawyers using AI to keep educating themselves on its risks and possibilities; Guidance Art. 3(3) frames this as AI literacy — proportionate understanding of the capabilities, limits and risks of the tools used. EU AI Act Art. 4 applies in parallel from 2 Feb 2025.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "sk-sak-uznesenie-12-4-2025-ai-rules" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://sak.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Uznesenie_12-4-2025_plne-znenie-k-25-11-2025-ff2a4b92.pdf" }, { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "binding", "note": "Guidance Art. 3(4): the lawyer is responsible for demonstrable training of trainee lawyers [koncipienti] and employees on AI risks and on the Resolution's rules. Art. 9 requires adequate internal AI rules and recommends an approved/prohibited tool list and an AI-use register recording tool, mode and human verification.", "documents": [ "sk-sak-uznesenie-12-4-2025-ai-rules" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 as amended (PDF)", "url": "https://sak.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Uznesenie_12-4-2025_plne-znenie-k-25-11-2025-ff2a4b92.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "binding", "note": "Mode (b) requires express informed consent operating as a waiver of confidentiality under § 23(2) of the Act on Advocacy for a named provider and purpose, after disclosure of the tool, the risk of losing control of data, training use, third-country transfers and hallucinations. Guidance Art. 8(1) also requires informing clients where AI materially affects strategy, key decisions or fees.", "documents": [ "sk-sak-uznesenie-12-4-2025-ai-rules" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 as amended (PDF)", "url": "https://sak.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Uznesenie_12-4-2025_plne-znenie-k-25-11-2025-ff2a4b92.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "binding", "note": "Guidance Art. 8(2) states flatly that a lawyer must not charge the client for time spent training themselves on an AI tool. Art. 8(1) requires client information where AI use may materially affect the level of the fee.", "documents": [ "sk-sak-uznesenie-12-4-2025-ai-rules" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 as amended (PDF)", "url": "https://sak.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Uznesenie_12-4-2025_plne-znenie-k-25-11-2025-ff2a4b92.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no Slovak ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products could be checked without search access.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "binding", "note": "Unlike most European bars, SAK legislated rather than advised: 'Pravidlá používania nástrojov umelej inteligencie v advokátskej praxi', Presidium Resolution 12/4/2025 of 31 Mar 2025 (in force 1 May 2025), amended by Resolution 21/14/2025 of 6 Nov 2025 adding a ten-article methodological guidance plus model client clauses, published in Vestník SAK issue 87 on 25 Nov 2025.", "documents": [ "sk-sak-uznesenie-12-4-2025-ai-rules" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 as amended (PDF)", "url": "https://sak.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Uznesenie_12-4-2025_plne-znenie-k-25-11-2025-ff2a4b92.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no policy on the Slovak courts' institutional AI deployment could be checked without search access.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — the Úrad na ochranu osobných údajov site could not be checked. The SAK rules themselves import GDPR Art. 28 processor requirements for legal AI.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "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. Slovakia's designated national supervisory authorities were not verified in this session.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" }, { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2026/1744", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2026/1744/oj/eng" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Reported: Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, 4CdoNa/3/2026 (31 Mar 2026), imposed no sanction but recorded suspicion of AI drafting from incomplete sentences, holding the party bears full responsibility and must answer for any hallucinating AI arguments. Sourced from the SAK Bulletin; not verified against the official decisions database.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Bulletin slovenskej advokácie — Dôveruj, ale overuj: reflexie súdov na použitie AI v podaniach advokátov (10 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://www.sak.sk/bulletin/online-forum/doveruj-ale-overuj-reflexie-sudov-na-pouzitie-ai-v-podaniach-advokatov/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no Slovak arbitration or mediation institution rule on AI could be checked without search access.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "Resolution Art. 5 imposes a continuing self-education duty on lawyers using AI and requires the Bar to provide methodological guidance, training and model AI policies. Guidance Art. 3(4) adds a duty of demonstrable staff training. EU AI Act Art. 4 applies in parallel.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "sk-sak-uznesenie-12-4-2025-ai-rules" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 (PDF)", "url": "https://sak.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Uznesenie_12-4-2025_plne-znenie-k-25-11-2025-ff2a4b92.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "Guidance Art. 6 sets cumulative minimums for mode (c): a GDPR Art. 28 DPA, contractual confidentiality down the sub-processor chain, an explicit no-training guarantee, sub-processor transparency, encryption in transit and at rest, MFA, EEA-preferred data location with a valid transfer mechanism, and retention/deletion policies. Enterprise versions strongly recommended; beta versions barred for protected data.", "documents": [ "sk-sak-uznesenie-12-4-2025-ai-rules" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 as amended (PDF)", "url": "https://sak.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Uznesenie_12-4-2025_plne-znenie-k-25-11-2025-ff2a4b92.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "SAK — Uznesenie P SAK č. 12/4/2025 approving rules on the use of AI tools in legal practice, as amended by 21/14/2025 (Vestník SAK 87, PDF)", "url": "https://sak.sk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Uznesenie_12-4-2025_plne-znenie-k-25-11-2025-ff2a4b92.pdf" }, { "label": "Bulletin slovenskej advokácie — Keď AI prestane radiť a začne konať: metodika SAK v praxi (18 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://www.sak.sk/bulletin/online-forum/ked-ai-prestane-radit-a-zacne-konat-metodika-sak-v-praxi-a-nastup-agentickych-systemov/" }, { "label": "Bulletin slovenskej advokácie — Dôveruj, ale overuj: reflexie súdov na použitie AI v podaniach advokátov (10 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://www.sak.sk/bulletin/online-forum/doveruj-ale-overuj-reflexie-sudov-na-pouzitie-ai-v-podaniach-advokatov/" } ] }, { "id": "si", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/si", "name": "Slovenia", "iso": "SI", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Slovenia has an AI Act implementing statute, in force 21 November 2025, that makes the Information Commissioner the market-surveillance authority for justice-related high-risk systems, but no rule, bar guidance or reported case on lawyers' or judges' use of AI. The Slovenian Bar has held conferences only.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Slovenian Bar Association (Odvetniska zbornica Slovenije)", "url": "https://www.odv-zb.si/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia", "url": "https://www.sodisce.si/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.gov.si/drzavni-organi/ministrstva/ministrstvo-za-pravosodje/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "Information Commissioner (Informacijski pooblascenec)", "url": "https://www.ip-rs.si/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Agency for Communication Networks and Services (AKOS)", "url": "https://www.akos-rs.si/", "role": "AI Act authority" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026; the CCBE guide is the available reference.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judicial guidance found as of 4 September 2026. The Ministry of Justice sent an information letter on the AI Act in October 2024 to the Constitutional and Supreme Courts, prosecution, bar and notaries; it is informational rather than guidance. Judicial AI tools are not yet implemented.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ministry of Justice AI Act information letter, hosted by the bar (official)", "url": "https://www.odv-zb.si/upload/Gradiva%20komisij/e-komisija/AI%20akt%20dopis%20okt.%202024.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No national rule; EU AI Act Annex III point 8 applies and the implementing statute assigns justice-related high-risk oversight to the Information Commissioner.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "si-ziudhpui-ai-act-implementation" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Slovenian Bar guidance found as of 4 September 2026; the CCBE guide is the available reference.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific competence rule found; the bar academy conference on digitalisation and AI in the judiciary and the AI and law conference are voluntary.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Bar academy conference programme 2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.odv-zb.si/upload/odvetniska-akademija/2025/PROGRAM_final.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "The Slovenian Bar Association has issued no generative-AI guidance as of 4 September 2026; activity is limited to conferences and journal articles.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Bar academy conference programme 2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.odv-zb.si/upload/odvetniska-akademija/2025/PROGRAM_final.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No policy on courts' own AI systems found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Information Commissioner maintains an AI section with a frequently-asked-questions page updated in 2026 on the AI Act, its interplay with the GDPR and the Digital Omnibus. It is general rather than legal-sector specific.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Information Commissioner AI FAQ (official)", "url": "https://www.ip-rs.si/umetna-inteligenca/pogosta-vpra%C5%A1anja/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The act implementing Regulation 2024/1689, adopted 23 October 2025 and in force 21 November 2025, designates five market-surveillance authorities: the Information Commissioner for prohibited practices and justice-related high-risk systems, AKOS as single contact point and sandbox operator, the Bank of Slovenia, the Insurance Supervision Agency and the Market Inspectorate.", "documents": [ "si-ziudhpui-ai-act-implementation", "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Uradni list news on the draft act (official publisher)", "url": "https://www.uradni-list.si/novice/pogled/kdo-bo-nadziral-umetno-inteligenco-v-sloveniji-osnutek-zakona-v-javni-razpravi-/kdo-bo-nadziral-umetno-inteligenco-v-sloveniji-osnutek-zakona-v-javni-razpravi-" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Slovenian decision on hallucinated citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched because the research budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector vendor guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [ "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Uradni list: draft AI Act implementing statute in public consultation", "url": "https://www.uradni-list.si/novice/pogled/kdo-bo-nadziral-umetno-inteligenco-v-sloveniji-osnutek-zakona-v-javni-razpravi-/kdo-bo-nadziral-umetno-inteligenco-v-sloveniji-osnutek-zakona-v-javni-razpravi-" }, { "label": "Jadek & Pensa: what the AI Act implementing law brings", "url": "https://www.jadek-pensa.si/kaj-prinasa-zakon-o-izvajanju-akta-o-umetni-inteligenci/" }, { "label": "Information Commissioner: AI FAQ", "url": "https://www.ip-rs.si/umetna-inteligenca/pogosta-vpra%C5%A1anja/" }, { "label": "Ministry of Justice AI Act information letter", "url": "https://www.odv-zb.si/upload/Gradiva%20komisij/e-komisija/AI%20akt%20dopis%20okt.%202024.pdf" } ] }, { "id": "za", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/za", "name": "South Africa", "iso": "ZA", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 South Africa has no binding AI rule for legal practice; the position is set by judgments (Mavundla, Northbound, FJL v TGO). The Office of the Chief Justice circulated a draft judiciary AI policy in April 2026 and the 2026 Judiciary Conference resolved to finalise it. The national AI policy was withdrawn in June 2026.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Legal Practice Council (LPC)", "url": "https://lpc.org.za", "role": "regulator (legal practitioners)" }, { "name": "Law Society of South Africa (LSSA)", "url": "https://www.lssa.org.za", "role": "professional body (attorneys)" }, { "name": "Office of the Chief Justice / South African Judiciary", "url": "https://www.judiciary.org.za", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Information Regulator (South Africa)", "url": "https://inforegulator.org.za", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT)", "url": "https://www.dcdt.gov.za", "role": "AI policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "south-africa", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice directive or uniform rule requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026. Courts have addressed fabricated citations case by case under existing costs and contempt powers.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The duty is judge-made. Mavundla v MEC (KZN), Northbound Processing and Parker v Forsyth establish that practitioners are personally responsible for checking every authority. The LSSA AI Committee's revised draft ethics guidelines (1 July 2026) state practitioners are fully responsible for AI-assisted work but are not adopted.", "documents": [ "za-lssa-revised-generative-ai-ethics-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Office of the Chief Justice released a Draft Policy on Artificial Intelligence for the Judiciary for comment in April 2026. Resolution 5.2 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference (Umhlanga, 13–16 July 2026) directs the Judiciary Administration and Information Technology Steering Committee to finalise it for adoption.", "documents": [ "za-judiciary-conference-2026-resolutions-ai", "za-ocj-draft-ai-policy-judiciary" ], "sources": [ { "label": "2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, 16 July 2026 (official PDF), s5", "url": "https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/news/2026/FINAL%20ADOPTED%202026%20Judiciary%20Conference%20Resolutions.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The draft judiciary policy expressly bars AI from adjudicative functions — evaluating evidence, assessing credibility, interpreting or applying law, generating substantive legal reasoning, and determining bail, sentence or risk. Conference resolution 5.2 asks for greater specificity on permissible and prohibited uses; resolution 5.3 keeps judicial reasoning and determination central.", "documents": [ "za-judiciary-conference-2026-resolutions-ai", "za-ocj-draft-ai-policy-judiciary" ], "sources": [ { "label": "2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, 16 July 2026 (official PDF), s5.2–5.3", "url": "https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/news/2026/FINAL%20ADOPTED%202026%20Judiciary%20Conference%20Resolutions.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026; authenticity is handled under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act and common-law principles.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Not yet binding. The LSSA revised draft guidelines require practitioners to address cybersecurity risks including prompt injection and data corruption; conference resolution 5.2 asks the judiciary policy to safeguard confidentiality.", "documents": [ "za-lssa-revised-generative-ai-ethics-guidelines", "za-judiciary-conference-2026-resolutions-ai", "za-ocj-draft-ai-policy-judiciary" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No competence rule names AI. The LSSA revised draft guidelines require output to be evaluated for accuracy, local legal relevance and bias; the LPC has consulted on adopting ethics guidelines.", "documents": [ "za-lssa-revised-generative-ai-ethics-guidelines" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No supervision duty naming AI found as of 4 September 2026. FJL v TGO exposed a gap for acting judges, who remain practising advocates answerable to the LPC rather than the Judicial Conduct Committee.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients of or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal services; the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014 reserves legal practice to enrolled practitioners.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "proposed", "note": "In 2026 the LPC invited the profession to comment on proposed Ethics Guidelines for Legal Practitioners on the Use of Generative AI, and held a webinar on AI in legal research in August 2025. The LSSA AI Committee's revised draft was published in De Rebus on 1 July 2026. Neither has been adopted.", "documents": [ "za-lssa-revised-generative-ai-ethics-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "De Rebus — revised guidelines and consultation summary", "url": "https://www.derebus.org.za/responsible-ai-use-in-south-african-legal-practice-our-revised-guidelines-and-the-consultation-that-shaped-them/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Resolutions 5.1 and 5.4 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference direct modernisation of court systems and use of customised, secure AI platforms, initially for court recording and transcription, translation, case management and document summarisation. No policy is yet adopted.", "documents": [ "za-judiciary-conference-2026-resolutions-ai", "za-ocj-draft-ai-policy-judiciary" ], "sources": [ { "label": "2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, 16 July 2026 (official PDF), s5.1, 5.4", "url": "https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/news/2026/FINAL%20ADOPTED%202026%20Judiciary%20Conference%20Resolutions.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "POPIA applies to AI processing by firms and courts, but Information Regulator guidance specific to AI was not located within the research budget. Not fully checked as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute. The Draft South Africa National AI Policy (General Notice 3880, Government Gazette 54477, 10 April 2026) was withdrawn in its entirety by Notice 3978 of 2026 (Gazette 54840, 12 June 2026, signed 4 June 2026) after at least six of its 67 academic citations were found to be fabricated by AI.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Withdrawal of the Draft South Africa National AI Policy, Notice 3978 of 2026, GG 54840 (official gazette PDF)", "url": "https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202606/54840gen3978.pdf" }, { "label": "Draft South Africa National AI Policy, GN 3880, GG 54477 (official gazette PDF)", "url": "https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202604/54477gen3880.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Courts apply existing costs, contempt and referral powers. Mavundla v MEC (KZN) and Northbound Processing dealt with practitioners' fabricated citations; in FJL v TGO (Gauteng full court, 31 July 2026) Opperman J referred an acting judge to the LPC over at least eleven fictitious citations; Molawa v Matjhabeng (Labour Court, 13 July 2026) concerned a disciplinary chairperson's hallucinated authorities.", "documents": [ "za-draft-national-ai-policy-withdrawn" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No AFSA or AAA-Africa AI guideline located within the research budget; not fully checked as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No mandatory requirement in force. Resolution 5.5 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference directs the Judiciary to provide ongoing education on responsible AI use, including prompt design and verification, while maintaining legal research, reasoning and judgment-writing skills.", "documents": [ "za-judiciary-conference-2026-resolutions-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, 16 July 2026 (official PDF), s5.5", "url": "https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/news/2026/FINAL%20ADOPTED%202026%20Judiciary%20Conference%20Resolutions.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Resolution 5.3 of the 2026 Judiciary Conference requires the Judiciary to retain ownership and governance over the development, procurement and use of AI systems, and that training data reflect South Africa's constitutional values. No rule applies to law firms.", "documents": [ "za-judiciary-conference-2026-resolutions-ai", "za-ocj-draft-ai-policy-judiciary" ], "sources": [ { "label": "2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions, 16 July 2026 (official PDF), s5.3", "url": "https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/news/2026/FINAL%20ADOPTED%202026%20Judiciary%20Conference%20Resolutions.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "South African Judiciary — 2026 Judiciary Conference Resolutions (16 July 2026)", "url": "https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/news/2026/FINAL%20ADOPTED%202026%20Judiciary%20Conference%20Resolutions.pdf" }, { "label": "Withdrawal of the Draft South Africa National AI Policy — Notice 3978 of 2026, GG 54840 (12 June 2026)", "url": "https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202606/54840gen3978.pdf" }, { "label": "Draft South Africa National AI Policy — GN 3880, GG 54477 (10 April 2026)", "url": "https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202604/54477gen3880.pdf" }, { "label": "SAnews — Minister announces withdrawal of draft AI Policy", "url": "https://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/minister-announces-withdrawal-draft-ai-policy" }, { "label": "De Rebus — Responsible AI use in South African legal practice: revised guidelines", "url": "https://www.derebus.org.za/responsible-ai-use-in-south-african-legal-practice-our-revised-guidelines-and-the-consultation-that-shaped-them/" } ] }, { "id": "kr", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/kr", "name": "South Korea", "iso": "KR", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Korea combines a binding horizontal statute with judicial soft law. The AI Basic Act has been in force since 22 January 2026 with transparency and high-impact duties. The National Court Administration's AI Guidebook for Judges governs judges' use of commercial AI, and the judiciary is building its own trial-support and sentencing AI.", "regulators": [ { "name": "National Court Administration, Supreme Court of Korea", "url": "https://www.scourt.go.kr/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Korean Bar Association", "url": "https://www.koreanbar.or.kr/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Science and ICT", "url": "https://www.msit.go.kr/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Personal Information Protection Commission", "url": "https://www.pipc.go.kr/", "role": "data protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule. The judges' Judicial AI Research Group guideline of February 2025, which is not official court policy, proposed that courts may require parties to disclose AI use, tools and prompts for submitted documents.", "documents": [ "kr-judicial-ai-research-group-guidelines-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal Times on the research group guideline", "url": "https://www.legaltimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=85019" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The AI Guidebook for Judges, announced by the National Court Administration on 24 February 2026 and distributed in March 2026, provides checklists addressing hallucination, bias and privacy when judges use commercial AI. There is no lawyer-facing rule.", "documents": [ "kr-scourt-ai-guidebook-for-judges-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Dailian on the AI Guidebook for Judges", "url": "https://dailian.co.kr/news/view/1613520/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The AI Guidebook for Judges sets standards and about twenty graded examples for using commercial AI in trial and administrative work while judicial responsibility and impartiality are preserved. It was drafted by a task force of eight judges formed in October 2025. The official press release is not retrievable.", "documents": [ "kr-scourt-ai-guidebook-for-judges-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Dailian on the AI Guidebook for Judges", "url": "https://dailian.co.kr/news/view/1613520/" }, { "label": "Newspim on the judiciary AI platform", "url": "https://www.newspim.com/news/view/20260806001025" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Guidebook and court-administration statements hold that AI must not replace judicial judgment; the planned sentencing AI is to provide comparable-case references only, with sentencing remaining with judges.", "documents": [ "kr-scourt-ai-guidebook-for-judges-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Newspim", "url": "https://www.newspim.com/news/view/20260806001025" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific evidence rule. The judges' research-group guideline of February 2025 says existing civil and criminal procedure law governs AI-generated evidence and flags deepfake risks. AI Basic Act article 31 requires labelling of generative outputs indistinguishable from reality.", "documents": [ "kr-judicial-ai-research-group-guidelines-2025", "kr-ai-basic-act-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal Times on the research group guideline", "url": "https://www.legaltimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=85019" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance. The judiciary addresses confidentiality by routing judges to its own closed AI platform rather than external large language models, per February 2026 statements.", "documents": [ "kr-scourt-ai-guidebook-for-judges-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Daum news on the court AI platform", "url": "https://v.daum.net/v/20260218093833012?f=p" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No lawyer-facing rule. AI Basic Act article 31 requires operators of generative or high-impact AI to notify users in advance that a product operates on AI.", "documents": [ "kr-ai-basic-act-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Future of Privacy Forum analysis of the AI Basic Act", "url": "https://fpf.org/blog/south-koreas-new-ai-framework-act-a-balancing-act-between-innovation-and-regulation/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific ruling or regulation on consumer legal AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Korean Bar Association had issued no AI guidance; its June 2024 page only summarises activity by other bars. A Seoul Bar Association legal-tech and AI committee reportedly drafted guidelines, but no text was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "KBA news item on international bar AI activity", "url": "https://koreanbar.or.kr/pages/news/view.asp?teamcode=&page=3&seq=13728&types=2&category=&searchtype=contents&searchstr=" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The judiciary runs a closed trial-support AI in pilot across courts for research and summarisation, with issue analysis due by May 2027 and full rollout in June 2028, a sentencing-support AI due December 2028, and AI pilot trial divisions in the Patent Court from April 2026 using generative AI with parties' consent.", "documents": [ "kr-scourt-ai-guidebook-for-judges-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Newspim", "url": "https://www.newspim.com/news/view/20260806001025" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Personal Information Protection Commission publishes AI privacy guides, most recently a public-sector AI privacy protection guide posted on 31 August 2026. These are general rather than legal-sector-specific.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "PIPC guides board", "url": "https://www.pipc.go.kr/np/cop/bbs/selectBoardList.do?bbsId=BS217&mCode=D010030000" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The Framework Act on AI Development and Trust, Law No. 20676, promulgated 21 January 2025 and in force 22 January 2026, defines high-impact AI by sector and imposes article 31 transparency and article 34 risk-management, explanation and human-oversight duties. Fines are deferred for at least one year and justice uses are not separately enumerated.", "documents": [ "kr-ai-basic-act-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Act on law.go.kr (official)", "url": "https://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=268543" }, { "label": "Government policy briefing on the Enforcement Decree", "url": "https://www.korea.kr/news/policyNewsView.do?newsId=148954629" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The research budget was exhausted before Korean case law on AI-fabricated citations could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched within the research budget; the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board was not checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026; the judges' guidebook is educational.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No law-firm vendor guidance. The judiciary builds in-house, procuring its sentencing AI publicly rather than licensing external large language models.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Newspim", "url": "https://www.newspim.com/news/view/20260806001025" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "AI Basic Act (law.go.kr)", "url": "https://www.law.go.kr/lsInfoP.do?lsiSeq=268543" }, { "label": "Enforcement Decree briefing (korea.kr)", "url": "https://www.korea.kr/news/policyNewsView.do?newsId=148954629" }, { "label": "Dailian: AI Guidebook for Judges", "url": "https://dailian.co.kr/news/view/1613520/" }, { "label": "Newspim: judiciary AI platform", "url": "https://www.newspim.com/news/view/20260806001025" }, { "label": "Legal Times: Judicial AI Research Group guideline", "url": "https://www.legaltimes.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=85019" } ] }, { "id": "es", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/es", "name": "Spain", "iso": "ES", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Spain has binding rules on both sides of the bench: the CGPJ's Instruccion 2/2026 governs judges' use of AI, and the CGAE's Circular 3/2026 makes unverified AI-drafted filings a serious disciplinary infraction. Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 frames assisted drafting in courts, and the TSJ Canarias imposed Spain's first hallucination fine.", "regulators": [ { "name": "General Council of the Judiciary (Consejo General del Poder Judicial)", "url": "https://www.poderjudicial.es/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "General Council of Spanish Lawyers (Consejo General de la Abogacia Espanola)", "url": "https://www.abogacia.es/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Madrid Bar (Ilustre Colegio de la Abogacia de Madrid)", "url": "https://web.icam.es/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD)", "url": "https://www.aepd.es/", "role": "data protection" }, { "name": "Spanish AI Supervision Agency (AESIA)", "url": "https://aesia.digital.gob.es/", "role": "AI Act authority" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No procedural rule requires parties to disclose AI use in filings. CGAE Circular 3/2026 recommends only internal traceability. Courts have instead used article 247 of the civil procedure law on procedural bad faith after the fact.", "documents": [ "es-cgae-circular-3-2026-ia-generativa-verificacion" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CGAE Circular 3/2026 (ICAIB mirror)", "url": "https://www.icaib.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Circular-interpretativa-3-2026_Deontologia-aprobada-Pleno-modificaciones-13-4-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "CGAE Interpretive Circular 3/2026, approved by the Pleno on 10 April 2026 and amended on 13 April, provides that signing or filing AI-assisted documents without verification is a serious infraction under article 125.u of the profession's statute; the signer is solely responsible and a tool error is no excuse.", "documents": [ "es-cgae-circular-3-2026-ia-generativa-verificacion" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CGAE Circular 3/2026 (ICAIB mirror)", "url": "https://www.icaib.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Circular-interpretativa-3-2026_Deontologia-aprobada-Pleno-modificaciones-13-4-2026.pdf" }, { "label": "CGAE news release", "url": "https://www.abogacia.es/actualidad/noticias/la-abogacia-espanola-advierte-de-los-riesgos-de-usar-la-ia-generativa-en-textos-profesionales/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "CGPJ Instruccion 2/2026, agreed by the Pleno on 28 January 2026 and published in the state gazette on 30 January, binds judges and magistrates: effective human control, no autonomous decision-making, no unapproved tools except for study with open-source material and no judicial data, full personal responsibility, CGPJ supervision and training.", "documents": [ "es-cgpj-instruccion-2-2026-ia-actividad-jurisdiccional", "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Instruccion 2/2026 in the BOE (official)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-2205" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "binding", "note": "Instruccion 2/2026 prohibits AI operating autonomously to decide, evaluate facts or evidence, or interpret and apply the law, and bars incorporating AI content without critical personal validation. Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 article 57 allows AI-assisted drafts only as support that cannot become a resolution without the judge's intervention.", "documents": [ "es-cgpj-instruccion-2-2026-ia-actividad-jurisdiccional", "es-rdl-6-2023-actuaciones-automatizadas-asistidas" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Instruccion 2/2026 in the BOE (official)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-2205" }, { "label": "Real Decreto-ley 6/2023 consolidated (official)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2023-25758" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants on AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Madrid Bar Guide of Good Practice on AI of October 2025 addresses client data in AI tools; Circular 3/2026 expressly defers confidentiality and professional secrecy to a separate circular. The press reports a CGAE Circular 1/2025 on professional secrecy and technology, which was not opened.", "documents": [ "es-icam-guia-buenas-practicas-ia-abogacia-2025", "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ICAM AI guide page (official)", "url": "https://web.icam.es/abogacia-inteligencia-artificial/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Article 21.2 of the code of conduct on responsible and diligent use of technology, as interpreted by Circular 3/2026: lawyers must know the tools they use, use AI only in fields they master, and are liable for uncritical delegation. The Madrid guide and the CGAE white paper call for mandatory digital training.", "documents": [ "es-cgae-circular-3-2026-ia-generativa-verificacion", "es-cgae-libro-blanco-ia-abogacia-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CGAE Circular 3/2026 (ICAIB mirror)", "url": "https://www.icaib.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Circular-interpretativa-3-2026_Deontologia-aprobada-Pleno-modificaciones-13-4-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "binding", "note": "Circular 3/2026 treats insufficient control of the delegated task as the core failing: the signing lawyer answers for AI-assisted work by staff or tools, and the tool's failure evidences a breach of the duty of supervision.", "documents": [ "es-cgae-circular-3-2026-ia-generativa-verificacion" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CGAE Circular 3/2026 (ICAIB mirror)", "url": "https://www.icaib.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Circular-interpretativa-3-2026_Deontologia-aprobada-Pleno-modificaciones-13-4-2026.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Madrid Bar guide of October 2025 recommends informing clients about AI use; there is no binding client-disclosure rule at national bar level.", "documents": [ "es-icam-guia-buenas-practicas-ia-abogacia-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ICAM AI guide page (official)", "url": "https://web.icam.es/abogacia-inteligencia-artificial/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Madrid Bar guide of October 2025 addresses transparent billing of time when AI assists; there is no national bar rule.", "documents": [ "es-icam-guia-buenas-practicas-ia-abogacia-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ICAM AI guide page (official)", "url": "https://web.icam.es/abogacia-inteligencia-artificial/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "binding", "note": "Binding: CGAE Circular 3/2026 on generative AI and verification. Guidance: the Madrid Bar Guide of Good Practice of October 2025 and the CGAE White Paper on AI and the Legal Profession presented on 30 January 2026. The press also cites a 2024 CGAE AI guide and Circular 1/2025, which were not opened.", "documents": [ "es-cgae-circular-3-2026-ia-generativa-verificacion", "es-icam-guia-buenas-practicas-ia-abogacia-2025", "es-cgae-libro-blanco-ia-abogacia-2026", "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "CGAE Circular 3/2026 (ICAIB mirror)", "url": "https://www.icaib.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Circular-interpretativa-3-2026_Deontologia-aprobada-Pleno-modificaciones-13-4-2026.pdf" }, { "label": "ICAM AI guide page (official)", "url": "https://web.icam.es/abogacia-inteligencia-artificial/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Royal Decree-Law 6/2023 regulates automated, proactive and assisted actions in the justice administration: assisted actions produce drafts under full human control and take effect only after validation. Instruccion 2/2026 article 9 restricts judges to systems supplied by the competent administrations, with CGPJ supervision of personal-data processing.", "documents": [ "es-rdl-6-2023-actuaciones-automatizadas-asistidas", "es-cgpj-instruccion-2-2026-ia-actividad-jurisdiccional" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Real Decreto-ley 6/2023 consolidated (official)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2023-25758" }, { "label": "Instruccion 2/2026 in the BOE (official)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-2205" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "AEPD guidance on agentic AI of 18 February 2026 for controllers and processors deploying AI agents, plus its earlier guide on adapting AI processing to the GDPR. It is not legal-sector specific but is relied on by the Madrid Bar.", "documents": [ "es-aepd-orientaciones-ia-agentica-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "AEPD agentic AI guidance (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.aepd.es/guias/orientaciones-ia-agentica.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The EU AI Act applies directly and AESIA is the supervisory agency. A national law on the good use and governance of AI was approved as a preliminary draft on 11 March 2025 and, per secondary reports, sent to the Cortes as a bill on 26 May 2026; this was not verified against official sources.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [ { "label": "AESIA (official)", "url": "https://aesia.digital.gob.es/" }, { "label": "LexFlow overview of Spanish AI rules 2026 (secondary)", "url": "https://www.lexflow-ia.com/blog/regulacion-ia-abogacia-espana-2026-cumplimiento-lexflow" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "TSJ Navarra issued a warning without sanction in September 2024. TSJ Canarias fined a lawyer about 420 to 450 euro under article 247 of the civil procedure law for 48 non-existent Supreme Court citations in February 2026. TSJ Navarra archived article 247 proceedings in April 2026 after an apology. Circular 3/2026 adds discipline.", "documents": [ "es-tsj-canarias-2026-48-citas-falsas", "es-tsj-navarra-2026-citas-inventadas-sin-sancion", "es-cgae-circular-3-2026-ia-generativa-verificacion" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Xataka on the TSJ Canarias fine", "url": "https://www.xataka.com/magnet/tribunal-superior-justicia-canarias-multa-a-abogado-citar-48-sentencias-falsas-se-habia-sugerido-ia" }, { "label": "El Espanol on TSJ Navarra, April 2026", "url": "https://www.elespanol.com/espana/tribunales/20260404/abogada-cito-recurso-sentencias-inventadas-ia-libra-sancion-pedir-perdon-tribunal/1003744194050_0.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched because the research budget was exhausted; no Spanish arbitral-institution AI rule was identified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Instruccion 2/2026 commits the CGPJ to provide AI training for judges, though not as a duty on each judge. The CGAE white paper and the Madrid Bar guide recommend training, and Circular 3/2026 lists knowing the tools as a diligence factor. There is no mandatory AI continuing education.", "documents": [ "es-cgpj-instruccion-2-2026-ia-actividad-jurisdiccional", "es-cgae-circular-3-2026-ia-generativa-verificacion", "es-cgae-libro-blanco-ia-abogacia-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Instruccion 2/2026 in the BOE (official)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-2205" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "binding", "note": "Judges may use only AI systems provided by the competent public administrations for judicial work under Instruccion 2/2026 article 9. For lawyers, the Madrid Bar guide covers vendor selection, including no-training clauses, EU data residency and article 28 GDPR processor agreements, as guidance.", "documents": [ "es-cgpj-instruccion-2-2026-ia-actividad-jurisdiccional", "es-icam-guia-buenas-practicas-ia-abogacia-2025", "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Instruccion 2/2026 in the BOE (official)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-2205" }, { "label": "ICAM AI guide page (official)", "url": "https://web.icam.es/abogacia-inteligencia-artificial/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "CGPJ Instruccion 2/2026 (BOE-A-2026-2205)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2026-2205" }, { "label": "CGAE Circular interpretativa 3/2026 (ICAIB mirror)", "url": "https://www.icaib.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Circular-interpretativa-3-2026_Deontologia-aprobada-Pleno-modificaciones-13-4-2026.pdf" }, { "label": "Real Decreto-ley 6/2023 (BOE consolidated)", "url": "https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2023-25758" }, { "label": "ICAM Guia de Buenas Practicas IA (October 2025)", "url": "https://web.icam.es/abogacia-inteligencia-artificial/" }, { "label": "AEPD Orientaciones sobre IA agentica", "url": "https://www.aepd.es/guias/orientaciones-ia-agentica.pdf" }, { "label": "Xataka: TSJ Canarias fine", "url": "https://www.xataka.com/magnet/tribunal-superior-justicia-canarias-multa-a-abogado-citar-48-sentencias-falsas-se-habia-sugerido-ia" } ] }, { "id": "lk", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/lk", "name": "Sri Lanka", "iso": "LK", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Sri Lanka has no court rule, judicial guidance or reported case on AI in legal practice. A Bar Association draft framework on generative AI reported in June 2026 could not be found on the association's site. The Personal Data Protection Act has been enforced since March 2025 but the authority has issued no AI guidance.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Sri Lanka", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.lk/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Bar Association of Sri Lanka", "url": "https://basl.lk/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Data Protection Authority of Sri Lanka", "url": "https://www.dpa.gov.lk/", "role": "regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "A Bar Association of Sri Lanka draft framework on generative AI in legal practice was reported in June 2026, but a site search on 4 September 2026 returned no AI-related post and no document could be opened.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Bar Association of Sri Lanka site search", "url": "https://basl.lk/?s=artificial+intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The Personal Data Protection Act No. 9 of 2022 has been enforced since 18 March 2025; the Data Protection Authority has published no AI-specific or legal-sector-specific guidance as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Data Protection Authority of Sri Lanka", "url": "https://www.dpa.gov.lk/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI statute, bill or risk classification found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported case of AI-fabricated citations before Sri Lankan courts found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Bar Association of Sri Lanka", "url": "https://basl.lk/" }, { "label": "Data Protection Authority of Sri Lanka", "url": "https://www.dpa.gov.lk/" } ] }, { "id": "se", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/se", "name": "Sweden", "iso": "SE", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Sweden regulates legal AI through bar self-regulation plus directly applicable EU law. The Swedish Bar Association adopted general advice on 13 June 2024 and detailed guidance on 12 June 2025 tying generative AI to the Code of Conduct. Eskilstuna District Court cut a lawyer's fee in January 2026 over four fabricated Supreme Court citations. No court rule requires AI disclosure.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Swedish Bar Association [Sveriges advokatsamfund]", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Swedish National Courts Administration [Domstolsverket]", "url": "https://www.domstol.se/domstolsverket/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection [Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten, IMY]", "url": "https://www.imy.se/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Swedish Post and Telecom Authority [Post- och telestyrelsen, PTS]", "url": "https://pts.se/ai/ai-forordningen/", "role": "regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Swedish court rule or practice direction requires parties to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026; the Code of Judicial Procedure [rättegångsbalken] is silent and Domstolsverket has issued no party-facing direction.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Bar guidance (12 June 2025) s.3: GenAI can cite cases or statutes that do not exist, so a lawyer must critically review output before it enters advice — verifying sources, checking statistics and confirming the applicability of cited law. Advisory liability applies in full regardless of GenAI use (VRGA 5.3, 6.2).", "documents": [ "se-advokatsamfundet-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — Vägledning om användning av generativ AI i advokatverksamhet (PDF)", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/globalassets/advokatsamfundet_sv/advokatyrket/vagledning-om-anvandning-av-generativ-ai-i-advokatverksamhet.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Domstolsverket has internal guidelines for court staff and judges on using public AI tools: classified information must never be entered, and nothing about an undelivered judgment may be shared. Not published as a public practice direction.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Sveriges Domstolar — development and innovation (AI projects)", "url": "https://www.domstol.se/en/om-sveriges-domstolar/utveckling-och-innovation/oversattning-med-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No Swedish rule expressly bars AI from adjudicative reasoning. Domstolsverket's stated position is that AI is used for support tasks only, not decision-making, but this rests on practice and CEPEJ guidance rather than a domestic instrument.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "Sweden applies free evaluation of evidence [fri bevisprövning]; no rule or guidance on authenticating AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Bar guidance s.4: confidentiality [tystnadsplikt] holds regardless of working method; client information may only be entered into GenAI in a secure way, and the tool must not use it for training or to generate output for other users. Firms with information barriers must keep walled data out of shared tools.", "documents": [ "se-advokatsamfundet-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — generative AI guidance (PDF)", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/globalassets/advokatsamfundet_sv/advokatyrket/vagledning-om-anvandning-av-generativ-ai-i-advokatverksamhet.pdf" }, { "label": "IMY — GDPR vid användning av generativ AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.imy.se/contentassets/1571d42dcc8346529658968c198cd4b5/gdpr-vid-anvandning-av-generativ-ai_imy-2024-9162.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "EU AI Act Art. 4 AI literacy duty applies directly to Swedish law firms deploying AI since 2 Feb 2025. Domestic competence rules in the Code of Conduct do not name AI.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "se-advokatsamfundet-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regulation (EU) 2024/1689", "url": "https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Bar guidance s.5 applies the principal's duty under VRGA 7.6.2: a lawyer must take reasonable steps to ensure staff meet good practice when using GenAI, and firms should adopt, publish and regularly update policies on which tools may be used and how output is fact-checked.", "documents": [ "se-advokatsamfundet-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — generative AI guidance (PDF)", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/globalassets/advokatsamfundet_sv/advokatyrket/vagledning-om-anvandning-av-generativ-ai-i-advokatverksamhet.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Bar guidance s.4: no consent needed if no client information is entered. If client information is used but contractual and technical safeguards match other external IT services, the ordinary assessment applies. Where residual risk cannot be addressed, the client's consent must be obtained — standard terms are not enough.", "documents": [ "se-advokatsamfundet-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — Vägledning (PDF), s. 10", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/globalassets/advokatsamfundet_sv/advokatyrket/vagledning-om-anvandning-av-generativ-ai-i-advokatverksamhet.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Eskilstuna District Court (Jan 2026) held that uncritical AI use producing fabricated authorities weighed strongly against a claimed SEK 2,100 hourly rate, and cut the fee. No bar rule on billing for AI time.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Eskilstuna-Kuriren — court reduces lawyer's fee", "url": "https://www.ekuriren.se/nyheter/eskilstuna/artikel/eskilstuna-tingsratt-sanker-juristens-arvode/re76oy5j" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "Sweden has no general reservation of legal services (non-advokat legal advisers may practise), so consumer AI legal products raise no unauthorised-practice issue; no ruling found.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The board adopted general advice on generative AI models on 13 June 2024; a working group then produced 'Vägledning om användning av generativ AI i advokatverksamhet', dated Stockholm 12 June 2025, with sections on regulatory compliance, advisory liability, confidentiality, and principal liability and office organisation.", "documents": [ "se-advokatsamfundet-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — Vägledning (PDF)", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/globalassets/advokatsamfundet_sv/advokatyrket/vagledning-om-anvandning-av-generativ-ai-i-advokatverksamhet.pdf" }, { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — Allmänna råd (13 June 2024)", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Nyhetsarkiv/2024/juni/allmanna-rad-om-generativa-ai-modeller-i-advokatverksamhet/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Domstolsverket runs AI projects with internal rules: an AI redaction/masking service for confidential data in released documents, and an AI translation tool for judgments. Staff guidelines restrict what may be entered into public tools.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Sveriges Domstolar — AI masking of confidential data", "url": "https://www.domstol.se/en/om-sveriges-domstolar/utveckling-och-innovation/sekretessbelagda-uppgifter-maskeras-med-hjalp-av-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "IMY published 'GDPR vid användning av generativ AI' (2024) and a two-part GDPR-and-AI guidance on its innovation portal; Digg and IMY jointly issued guidance on generative AI in public administration. IMY also runs a regulatory sandbox.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "IMY — GDPR vid användning av generativ AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.imy.se/contentassets/1571d42dcc8346529658968c198cd4b5/gdpr-vid-anvandning-av-generativ-ai_imy-2024-9162.pdf" }, { "label": "IMY — Vägledning om GDPR och AI", "url": "https://www.imy.se/verksamhet/dataskydd/innovationsportalen/vagledning-om-gdpr-och-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The AI Act applies directly. SOU 2025:101 'Anpassningar till AI-förordningen' proposes a new Swedish act with eleven market surveillance authorities, PTS leading, and IMY responsible for Annex III points 6, 7 and 8 — the administration-of-justice category. Sanctions could reach public authorities but not courts in their adjudicative activity.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "eu-digital-omnibus-ai-2026-1744" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Regeringen — SOU 2025:101 Anpassningar till AI-förordningen", "url": "https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2025/10/sou-2025101/" }, { "label": "IMY — IMY becomes market surveillance authority for the AI Regulation", "url": "https://www.imy.se/nyheter/imy-blir-marknadskontrollmyndighet-for-ai-forordningen/" }, { "label": "PTS — AI-förordningen", "url": "https://pts.se/ai/ai-forordningen/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Eskilstuna District Court, judgment reported 13 Jan 2026, criticised counsel for 'AI slop' pleadings citing four non-existent Supreme Court judgments and a misdescribed Contracts Act provision, and reduced the claimed fee. Case number not published in available reports.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Realtid — lawyer missed four AI-invented Supreme Court judgments", "url": "https://www.realtid.se/juridik/jurist-missade-fyra-ai-pahittade-hd-domar/" }, { "label": "Eskilstuna-Kuriren — court reduces lawyer's fee", "url": "https://www.ekuriren.se/nyheter/eskilstuna/artikel/eskilstuna-tingsratt-sanker-juristens-arvode/re76oy5j" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "The SCC Arbitration Institute had issued no AI guideline or rule as of 4 September 2026; no Swedish ADR body rule found.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "binding", "note": "No AI-specific CLE rule, but bar guidance s.5 says firms should ensure staff receive adequate GenAI training scaled to how the firm uses it, and notes the AI Act may require firms to ensure sufficient staff knowledge. Advokatakademien launched a voluntary AI course in April 2026.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "se-advokatsamfundet-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — new AI course from Advokatakademien (April 2026)", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Nyhetsarkiv/2026/april/ny-utbildning-om-ai-fran-advokatakademien/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Bar guidance sets a vendor checklist: whether the supplier reserves rights over input/output data, whether prompts and client data train the model or reach other users, who is liable for output, and what is disclosed about training data. Lawyers may need IT or cyber-security expertise to assess terms.", "documents": [ "se-advokatsamfundet-generative-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — Vägledning (PDF), ss. 5–11", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/globalassets/advokatsamfundet_sv/advokatyrket/vagledning-om-anvandning-av-generativ-ai-i-advokatverksamhet.pdf" }, { "label": "IMY — GDPR och AI", "url": "https://www.imy.se/verksamhet/ai/gdpr-och-ai/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — Vägledning om användning av generativ AI i advokatverksamhet (PDF)", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/globalassets/advokatsamfundet_sv/advokatyrket/vagledning-om-anvandning-av-generativ-ai-i-advokatverksamhet.pdf" }, { "label": "Advokatsamfundet — Allmänna råd om generativa AI-modeller (13 June 2024)", "url": "https://www.advokatsamfundet.se/Nyhetsarkiv/2024/juni/allmanna-rad-om-generativa-ai-modeller-i-advokatverksamhet/" }, { "label": "IMY — GDPR vid användning av generativ AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.imy.se/contentassets/1571d42dcc8346529658968c198cd4b5/gdpr-vid-anvandning-av-generativ-ai_imy-2024-9162.pdf" }, { "label": "Sveriges Domstolar — AI masking of confidential data", "url": "https://www.domstol.se/en/om-sveriges-domstolar/utveckling-och-innovation/sekretessbelagda-uppgifter-maskeras-med-hjalp-av-ai/" }, { "label": "Realtid — Eskilstuna tingsrätt AI-fabricated citations (Jan 2026)", "url": "https://www.realtid.se/juridik/jurist-missade-fyra-ai-pahittade-hd-domar/" }, { "label": "Regeringen — SOU 2025:101 Anpassningar till AI-förordningen", "url": "https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2025/10/sou-2025101/" } ] }, { "id": "ch", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ch", "name": "Switzerland", "iso": "CH", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Switzerland has no AI statute and will not adopt the EU AI Act. The Federal Council decided on 12 February 2025 to ratify the Council of Europe AI Convention and to legislate sector by sector. For lawyers the reference text is the Swiss Bar Association's Wegleitung, updated 16 February 2025.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Swiss Bar Association (Schweizerischer Anwaltsverband / Fédération Suisse des Avocats, SAV/FSA)", "url": "https://www.sav-fsa.ch/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (EDÖB/PFPDT)", "url": "https://www.edoeb.admin.ch/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Federal Office of Communications (BAKOM)", "url": "https://www.bakom.admin.ch/", "role": "AI policy coordination" }, { "name": "Federal Department of Justice and Police (EJPD)", "url": "https://www.ejpd.admin.ch/", "role": "ministry (AI legislation)" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Swiss federal or cantonal court rule requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SAV Wegleitung §2.2: it is 'von grösster Wichtigkeit' to check the output independently and critically. It warns that an AI cannot verify its own output, and names hallucinations, missing/outdated training data and sycophancy — an AI adapting its answer to the user's view — as the error sources. §2.3: a lawyer cannot plead that 'the AI made a mistake'.", "documents": [ "ch-sav-wegleitung-ki" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAV — Wegleitung für den Umgang mit künstlicher Intelligenz (official PDF)", "url": "https://digital.sav-fsa.ch/documents/1060627/0/SAV-Wegleitung_f%C3%BCr_den_Umgang_mit_k%C3%BCnstlicher_Intelligenz_16.2.25.pdf/0b498c8a-85aa-e089-32a2-18da59ee658c" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no Federal Supreme Court or cantonal judiciary guidance on generative AI was located before the search budget was exhausted. Switzerland is a Council of Europe member, so CEPEJ(2025)18Final applies as soft law.", "documents": [ "cepej-guidelines-generative-ai-courts" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No Swiss rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning found as of 4 September 2026. Art. 21 of the revised DSG (in force 1 Sep 2023) requires notification of automated individual decisions and a right to be heard, and the FDPIC says people keep the right to challenge an automated decision, but this is general data-protection law rather than a judicial rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "EDÖB — KI und Datenschutz (official)", "url": "https://www.edoeb.admin.ch/de/ki-und-datenschutz" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No Swiss court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Swiss evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SAV Wegleitung §2.1 is the most structured confidentiality test in this group. Before using any AI, clarify what happens to input data, who can access it and where it is stored, respecting the Anwaltsgeheimnis, the DSG and the Standesregeln. Only three routes are open: an on-premise install where no data leaves the firm network; compliance with the SAV's IT-outsourcing and cloud rules; or an informed consent-and-waiver from the client covering both professional secrecy and the DSG. Otherwise no confidential, personal or IP-protected content may be entered.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "ch-sav-wegleitung-ki" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAV Wegleitung §2.1 (official PDF)", "url": "https://digital.sav-fsa.ch/documents/1060627/0/SAV-Wegleitung_f%C3%BCr_den_Umgang_mit_k%C3%BCnstlicher_Intelligenz_16.2.25.pdf/0b498c8a-85aa-e089-32a2-18da59ee658c" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No Swiss rule names AI competence. Art. 12(a) BGFA requires careful and conscientious practice, and the SAV Wegleitung applies that to understanding how AI systems fail (hallucination, bias, sycophancy, black-box) before relying on them.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "SAV Wegleitung (official PDF)", "url": "https://digital.sav-fsa.ch/documents/1060627/0/SAV-Wegleitung_f%C3%BCr_den_Umgang_mit_k%C3%BCnstlicher_Intelligenz_16.2.25.pdf/0b498c8a-85aa-e089-32a2-18da59ee658c" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SAV Wegleitung §1: firms 'sollten für den Gebrauch von KI-Systemen eine interne Weisung erlassen und die Regeln diesbezüglich festlegen'. No binding supervision rule.", "documents": [ "ch-sav-wegleitung-ki" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAV Wegleitung §1 (official PDF)", "url": "https://digital.sav-fsa.ch/documents/1060627/0/SAV-Wegleitung_f%C3%BCr_den_Umgang_mit_k%C3%BCnstlicher_Intelligenz_16.2.25.pdf/0b498c8a-85aa-e089-32a2-18da59ee658c" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SAV Wegleitung §2.5 (Hinweispflicht): a duty to disclose AI use may arise from the provider's terms of use, or where the client requires or legitimately expects the mandate to be performed personally by the lawyer. Consent also functions as one of the three lawful routes for putting client data into a tool (§2.1) and §2.3 recommends agreeing responsibility and a liability limitation with the client in advance.", "documents": [ "ch-sav-wegleitung-ki" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAV Wegleitung §§2.1, 2.3, 2.5 (official PDF)", "url": "https://digital.sav-fsa.ch/documents/1060627/0/SAV-Wegleitung_f%C3%BCr_den_Umgang_mit_k%C3%BCnstlicher_Intelligenz_16.2.25.pdf/0b498c8a-85aa-e089-32a2-18da59ee658c" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Swiss rule or opinion on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "Swiss law reserves only representation before courts (BGFA and cantonal rules); legal advice is not a monopoly, so consumer AI legal products are not caught. No Swiss ruling or regulation on AI legal products found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SAV-Wegleitung für den Umgang mit künstlicher Intelligenz — approved by the SAV board on 14 June 2024, republished 16 February 2025 with the Federal Council's 12 Feb 2025 decisions. Six pages plus glossary, covering professional secrecy and data protection, independent verification, liability, copyright, notification duties, and the Swiss/EU/Council of Europe regulatory landscape.", "documents": [ "ccbe-guide-generative-ai-lawyers", "ch-sav-wegleitung-ki" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAV — Wegleitung Künstliche Intelligenz (official)", "url": "https://www.sav-fsa.ch/testseite/-/asset_publisher/DbkRv9dMWxix/content/wegleitung-k%C3%BCnstliche-intelligenz-ki-" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no published Swiss policy on institutional court AI deployment identified before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The FDPIC holds that the revised DSG (in force 1 Sep 2023) is technology-neutral and directly applicable to AI-based processing — statements of 9 Nov 2023 and 8 May 2025, plus 2023 guidance on ChatGPT-type applications and a 20 Mar 2025 position on X/Grok training data. Requirements: transparency about purpose, functioning and data sources; the right to object to an automated decision and to know one is dealing with a machine; DPIAs for high-risk uses.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "EDÖB — KI und Datenschutz (official)", "url": "https://www.edoeb.admin.ch/de/ki-und-datenschutz" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Switzerland will not transpose the EU AI Act. On 12 Feb 2025, alongside BAKOM's regulatory Auslegeordnung, the Federal Council decided to bring the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention into Swiss law, to make statutory changes sector-specifically with any cross-cutting rules confined to fundamental-rights areas such as data protection, and to add non-binding measures. The EJPD, with UVEK and EDA, must produce a consultation draft by the end of 2026. The SAV notes the EU AI Act still reaches Swiss providers and users via the effects principle.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act", "ch-sav-wegleitung-ki" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAV Wegleitung §3.1 (official PDF)", "url": "https://digital.sav-fsa.ch/documents/1060627/0/SAV-Wegleitung_f%C3%BCr_den_Umgang_mit_k%C3%BCnstlicher_Intelligenz_16.2.25.pdf/0b498c8a-85aa-e089-32a2-18da59ee658c" }, { "label": "BAKOM — KI-Leitlinien und Regulierungsanalyse (official)", "url": "https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/de/home/digital-und-internet/strategie-digitale-schweiz/ki_leitlinien.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported Swiss court or disciplinary decision on hallucinated AI citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched — no Swiss Arbitration Centre AI rule or note identified before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "The EU AI Act's Art. 4 literacy duty does not bind Swiss firms directly and there is no Swiss mandatory AI training requirement. The SAV recommends internal firm directives and training instead.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SAV Wegleitung §2.1 requires clarifying, before selecting any software, what happens to input data, who has access and where it is stored (including intermediate storage), and cross-refers to the separate SAV-Wegleitung für IT-Outsourcing und Cloud-Computing for provider arrangements.", "documents": [ "ccbe-technical-guide-ai-tools-lawyers", "ch-sav-wegleitung-ki" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SAV — IT-Outsourcing und Cloud-Computing (official)", "url": "https://digital.sav-fsa.ch/digitale-kanzlei-nutzung-von-clouddiensten" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "SAV — Wegleitung für den Umgang mit künstlicher Intelligenz (14 Jun 2024, updated 16 Feb 2025, PDF)", "url": "https://digital.sav-fsa.ch/documents/1060627/0/SAV-Wegleitung_f%C3%BCr_den_Umgang_mit_k%C3%BCnstlicher_Intelligenz_16.2.25.pdf/0b498c8a-85aa-e089-32a2-18da59ee658c" }, { "label": "SAV — Wegleitung Künstliche Intelligenz (landing page)", "url": "https://www.sav-fsa.ch/testseite/-/asset_publisher/DbkRv9dMWxix/content/wegleitung-k%C3%BCnstliche-intelligenz-ki-" }, { "label": "EDÖB — KI und Datenschutz", "url": "https://www.edoeb.admin.ch/de/ki-und-datenschutz" }, { "label": "BAKOM — KI-Leitlinien / Auslegeordnung KI-Regulierung (12 Feb 2025)", "url": "https://www.bakom.admin.ch/bakom/de/home/digital-und-internet/strategie-digitale-schweiz/ki_leitlinien.html" } ] }, { "id": "tw", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/tw", "name": "Taiwan", "iso": "TW", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Taiwan has a horizontal AI Basic Act promulgated on 14 January 2026 requiring risk classification and government AI risk assessments, and Judicial Yuan Reference Guidelines of 22 April 2026 imposing verification duties on court users. The Judicial Yuan's on-premises judgment-drafting tool leaves facts, law and sentencing to judges. No rules bind lawyers.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Judicial Yuan", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.tw/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "National Science and Technology Council", "url": "https://www.nstc.gov.tw/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Ministry of Digital Affairs", "url": "https://moda.gov.tw/", "role": "regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule. A May 2026 Judicial Weekly article by a High Court judge notes that Taiwan still lacks rules for external users such as lawyers and recommends a dual-track disclosure duty.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Judicial Weekly No. 2310 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/dl-265614-a4837ab9748f48c8b534c45251be1e5b.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Judicial Yuan Reference Guidelines for Use of AI Systems, issued by order of 22 April 2026, article 8: users must recognise hallucination risk and cross-check AI output against official documents, case files and legal databases before use. The guidelines apply to court personnel, not to lawyers.", "documents": [ "tw-judicial-yuan-ai-system-reference-guidelines-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Guideline text (LawPlayer mirror)", "url": "https://lawplayer.com/article/6a08db0a3521bb47cdb12c8f" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Judicial Yuan Reference Guidelines of 22 April 2026, chapter 2, govern user conduct. Earlier Judicial Yuan statements of August 2023 committed to follow the Executive Yuan generative-AI guidelines and to develop court-specific rules.", "documents": [ "tw-judicial-yuan-ai-system-reference-guidelines-2026", "tw-judicial-yuan-generative-ai-judgment-drafting-2023" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Guideline text (LawPlayer mirror)", "url": "https://lawplayer.com/article/6a08db0a3521bb47cdb12c8f" }, { "label": "Judicial Yuan press release, 27 August 2023 (official)", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-929494-8a9fb-1.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Judicial Yuan stated in August 2023 that its generative-AI drafting system covers only dangerous-driving and fraud-accessory cases and that fact-finding, application of law and sentencing remain entirely with the judge. The 2026 guidelines state that AI may only assist adjudication.", "documents": [ "tw-judicial-yuan-generative-ai-judgment-drafting-2023", "tw-judicial-yuan-ai-system-reference-guidelines-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judicial Yuan press release, 27 August 2023 (official)", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-929494-8a9fb-1.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific evidence rule; Judicial Weekly in May 2026 recommends adopting the approach of the draft United States Federal Rule of Evidence 707. AI Basic Act article 5 requires warnings on high-risk AI products.", "documents": [ "tw-ai-basic-act-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judicial Weekly No. 2310 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/dl-265614-a4837ab9748f48c8b534c45251be1e5b.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance found as of 4 September 2026; the Judicial Yuan guidelines address court data only.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Taiwan Bar Association generative-AI guidance found; Judicial Weekly in May 2026 confirms the absence of rules for lawyers.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Judicial Weekly No. 2310 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/dl-265614-a4837ab9748f48c8b534c45251be1e5b.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Judicial Yuan generative-AI judgment-drafting system, announced 27 August 2023, runs an on-premises model for two offence types with drug offences piloted from December 2023, alongside speech recognition and chatbots. The 2026 guidelines govern internal AI use.", "documents": [ "tw-judicial-yuan-generative-ai-judgment-drafting-2023", "tw-judicial-yuan-ai-system-reference-guidelines-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judicial Yuan press release, 27 August 2023 (official)", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-929494-8a9fb-1.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific or legal-sector-specific data-protection guidance found as of 4 September 2026; the AI Basic Act includes privacy-by-design principles.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "binding", "note": "The AI Basic Act, passed 23 December 2025 and promulgated 14 January 2026, has 20 articles: article 5 requires warnings for high-risk applications, article 16 tasks the Ministry of Digital Affairs with an internationally aligned risk-classification framework, and article 19 requires risk assessment before government AI use. No justice-specific tier exists yet.", "documents": [ "tw-ai-basic-act-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "AI Basic Act (law.moj.gov.tw, official)", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0160093" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported Taiwanese court sanction for AI-fabricated citations found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched within the research budget; the Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei, was not checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Judicial Yuan guidelines of 2026 require risk management in system deployment, and the 2023 drafting system was built on-premises to keep case data local. AI Basic Act article 19 requires government risk assessment before AI use.", "documents": [ "tw-judicial-yuan-ai-system-reference-guidelines-2026", "tw-ai-basic-act-2026" ], "sources": [ { "label": "AI Basic Act (official)", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0160093" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "AI Basic Act (law.moj.gov.tw)", "url": "https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=H0160093" }, { "label": "Judicial Yuan Reference Guidelines for Use of AI Systems (mirror)", "url": "https://lawplayer.com/article/6a08db0a3521bb47cdb12c8f" }, { "label": "Judicial Yuan press release on generative-AI drafting", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-929494-8a9fb-1.html" }, { "label": "Judicial Weekly No. 2310 (29 May 2026)", "url": "https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/dl-265614-a4837ab9748f48c8b534c45251be1e5b.html" } ] }, { "id": "tz", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/tz", "name": "Tanzania", "iso": "TZ", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Tanzania has no legal-practice AI rule from the judiciary or Tanganyika Law Society. The Ministry’s 2025 Guidelines for AI ethical use and national AI strategy framework are cross-sector instruments; no binding court-use rule, bar guidance or lawyer AI training mandate was located.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Tanganyika Law Society", "url": "https://tls.or.tz/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Judiciary of Tanzania", "url": "https://www.judiciary.go.tz/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Commission", "url": "https://pdpc.go.tz/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Ministry of Communication and Information Technology", "url": "https://www.mawasiliano.go.tz/", "role": "ai-policy" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The PDPC homepage confirms general personal-data oversight under the Personal Data Protection Act, Chapter 44; no PDPC guidance on AI or legal-service AI processing was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tanzania Personal Data Protection Commission", "url": "https://pdpc.go.tz/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Ministry of Communication and Information Technology’s 2025 Guidelines for AI ethical use provide cross-sector ethical-use guidance; the official PDF endpoint was fetched. No AI Act or justice risk classification was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tanzania Ministry — Guidelines for AI ethical use (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.mawasiliano.go.tz/uploads/documents/sw-1749982790-Guidelines%20for%20AI%20ethical%20USE%20Guideline%20MICIT%202025ver.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Tanzania Ministry — Guidelines for AI ethical use (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.mawasiliano.go.tz/uploads/documents/sw-1749982790-Guidelines%20for%20AI%20ethical%20USE%20Guideline%20MICIT%202025ver.pdf" }, { "label": "Tanzania Personal Data Protection Commission", "url": "https://pdpc.go.tz/" }, { "label": "Tanganyika Law Society", "url": "https://tls.or.tz/" }, { "label": "Judiciary of Tanzania", "url": "https://www.judiciary.go.tz/" } ] }, { "id": "th", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/th", "name": "Thailand", "iso": "TH", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Thailand has no located instrument on AI in legal practice as of September 2026: no Courts of Justice practice direction, no Lawyers Council guidance and no reported sanctions case. The only official AI material is horizontal, from the Electronic Transactions Development Agency's AI Governance Practice Center, alongside the PDPA 2019 baseline. Most categories are unresearched rather than negative.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Courts of Justice of Thailand", "url": "https://www.coj.go.th/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Lawyers Council of Thailand under Royal Patronage", "url": "https://www.lawyerscouncil.or.th/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Thai Bar Association", "url": "https://www.thethaibar.or.th/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) — AI Governance Practice Center", "url": "https://www.etda.or.th/th/Our-Service/AIGC/index.aspx", "role": "government" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC)", "url": "https://www.pdpc.or.th/", "role": "data protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Courts of Justice filing-disclosure rule was found on reachable pages; the Office of the Judiciary site could not be opened.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Courts of Justice of Thailand", "url": "https://www.coj.go.th/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Courts of Justice or Lawyers Council instrument imposing a verification duty was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No judicial AI-use guidance was found on reachable Courts of Justice pages; oja.coj.go.th and library.coj.go.th were unreachable.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Thai instrument barring AI from adjudicative reasoning was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Thai court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated; no AI or deepfake evidence rule located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) applies to lawyers as data controllers, but no AI-specific guidance was opened: the PDPC site returned HTTP 403.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "PDPC Thailand", "url": "https://www.pdpc.or.th/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Thai competence rule or guidance naming AI was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Thai supervision duty specific to AI-assisted work was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Thai requirement to inform clients of AI use was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Thai rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Thai determination on consumer AI legal products was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Leaning negative but not established. The Lawyers Council homepage was opened and carries no AI item in news, regulations or announcements; the Thai Bar Association site is a splash page. Neither is strong enough to record as an affirmative absence.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lawyers Council of Thailand", "url": "https://www.lawyerscouncil.or.th/" }, { "label": "Thai Bar Association", "url": "https://www.thethaibar.or.th/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Courts of Justice AI system was documented on the pages that could be opened.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The PDPA B.E. 2562 (2019) is the binding baseline. ETDA's AI Governance Practice Center publishes AI ethics and impact-assessment material, including an Ethical Impact Assessment playbook and an AI Job Redesign guideline. AI-specific PDPC guidance could not be verified because the regulator's site returned HTTP 403.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ETDA — AI Governance Practice Center", "url": "https://www.etda.or.th/th/Our-Service/AIGC/index.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No AI statute in force. ETDA issued Thailand's AI Governance Guideline for Executive (2023) and a 2023 study report on drafting AI legislation and assessing its impact. A draft Royal Decree on AI business operations is widely reported but could not be located on ETDA's own pages, so it is not recorded here as proposed.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ETDA — research and recommendations (AI governance guideline; AI legislation study report)", "url": "https://www.etda.or.th/th/Our-Service/AIGC/ResearchandRec.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Thai decision involving AI-fabricated citations was found as of 4 September 2026. The Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database (2,009 decisions across 41 jurisdictions, updated 3 September 2026) contains no Thai entry.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AI Hallucination Cases database (no Thai entries)", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Leaning negative. A search of the Thailand Arbitration Center site returned no AI-related items, but its search does not reliably filter, so this is not evidence of absence.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC)", "url": "https://thac.or.th/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No mandatory AI training or continuing education requirement for Thai lawyers was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Thai legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence guidance was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "ETDA — AI Governance Practice Center", "url": "https://www.etda.or.th/th/Our-Service/AIGC/index.aspx" }, { "label": "ETDA — research and recommendations (AI governance guideline and AI legislation study)", "url": "https://www.etda.or.th/th/Our-Service/AIGC/ResearchandRec.aspx" }, { "label": "Courts of Justice of Thailand", "url": "https://www.coj.go.th/" }, { "label": "Lawyers Council of Thailand", "url": "https://www.lawyerscouncil.or.th/" } ] }, { "id": "tt", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/tt", "name": "Trinidad and Tobago", "iso": "TT", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Trinidad and Tobago has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the Judiciary, Law Association, Parliament and data-protection materials found no AI disclosure rule, judicial-use policy, lawyer guidance, sanction case or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago", "url": "https://lawassociationtt.com/", "role": "regulator (lawyers)" }, { "name": "Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago", "url": "https://www.ttlawcourts.org/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago", "url": "https://www.ttparliament.org/", "role": "legislature" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "The Data Protection Act is only partly in force; no AI-specific guidance relevant to legal services found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Trinidad and Tobago", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=TT" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago", "url": "https://lawassociationtt.com/" }, { "label": "Parliament of Trinidad and Tobago", "url": "https://www.ttparliament.org/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Trinidad and Tobago", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=TT" } ] }, { "id": "tn", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/tn", "name": "Tunisia", "iso": "TN", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Tunisia has no AI-specific rule for lawyers, courts or filings. Tunisia’s AI Roadmap sets non-binding national objectives for AI awareness, infrastructure, skills, data policies and pilot projects. The INPDP and Ministry of Justice have not published legal-sector AI guidance; data-protection law remains general.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Ordre National des Avocats de Tunisie", "url": "https://avocat.org.tn/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.tn/", "role": "ministry" }, { "name": "National Authority for the Protection of Personal Data (INPDP)", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Tunisia’s data-protection framework and INPDP role are general; no INPDP guidance applying data-protection rules to AI or legal services was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OECD.AI records Tunisia’s AI Roadmap objectives: AI awareness, skills, infrastructure, data policies, pilot projects, open innovation and research-to-industry links. It is a non-binding roadmap and does not classify courts or legal services.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — Tunisia AI Roadmap", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/tunisia-ai-roadmap-1825" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — Tunisia AI Roadmap", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/tunisia-ai-roadmap-1825" }, { "label": "Ordre National des Avocats de Tunisie", "url": "https://avocat.org.tn/" }, { "label": "Tunisia Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.justice.gov.tn/" } ] }, { "id": "tr", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/tr", "name": "Türkiye", "iso": "TR", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Türkiye has no AI statute and no court rule on AI. The Union of Turkish Bar Associations' Recommendation Guide on the Use of AI for Lawyers (28 Aug 2026) is the governing instrument for the profession; KVKK's Generative AI and Data Protection Guide (24 Nov 2025) covers data; a 2024 AI bill remains in committee.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Union of Turkish Bar Associations [Türkiye Barolar Birliği, TBB]", "url": "https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice [Adalet Bakanlığı]", "url": "https://www.adalet.gov.tr/", "role": "government" }, { "name": "Council of Judges and Prosecutors [Hâkimler ve Savcılar Kurulu, HSK]", "url": "https://www.hsk.gov.tr/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Personal Data Protection Authority [Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurumu, KVKK]", "url": "https://www.kvkk.gov.tr/", "role": "data-protection" }, { "name": "Digital Transformation Office of the Presidency [Cumhurbaşkanlığı Dijital Dönüşüm Ofisi]", "url": "https://cbddo.gov.tr/", "role": "government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, court rule or Ministry circular requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings. The TBB Guide tells lawyers to comply where a court, arbitrator, mediator or administrative body does require a declaration, but creates no standing duty.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "TBB Guide: a lawyer may not submit any legislative provision, precedent, citation or fact obtained from an AI tool to a court, arbitrator, mediator or administrative body without confirming it against official and reliable sources. Submitting hallucinated citations may be a grave breach of the duty of professional care.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" }, { "label": "TBB announcement of the Guide (28 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Haberler/tbb-avukatlikta-yapay-zeka-kullanimina-iliskin-tavsiye-rehberini-yayimladi-86648" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. Neither the Council of Judges and Prosecutors nor the Ministry of Justice has published a circular (genelge) or ethics instrument on judges' use of AI; the Turkish Judicial Ethics Declaration does not address it.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No binding prohibition found as of 4 September 2026. Ministry of Justice statements accompanying the UYAP AI module (Aug 2026) say the system only classifies documents and recommends a filing type to staff, and is not a decision-making mechanism replacing judges or prosecutors, but this is a description not a rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Report on the UYAP 'Criminal Miscellaneous Request Type Prediction' module (15 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://adalet.tv/haber/uyap-dosyalari-artik-otomatik-analiz-edilecek-63677" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake material found as of 4 September 2026. Bills penalising unlabelled AI-generated content have been tabled but none is in force.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "TBB Guide prohibited-use list: non-anonymised client data, case and enforcement file contents, party details, evidence, special-category data, trade secrets and negotiation strategy must not be entered into public AI tools or tools with inadequate contractual safeguards. Data masking and closed systems required.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers", "tr-kvkk-generative-ai-guide" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The TBB Guide treats AI literacy as a current competence area of the profession: lawyers and trainees must not make critical use of AI without training in how it works, its limits, hallucination risk, data security, prompting, verification methods and KVKK compliance.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The TBB Guide recommends every law office adopt a written AI policy fixing approved tools, data types that may never be entered, authorisation levels, human review and verification processes, incident-reporting and breach procedures, plus office-wide staff training.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "TBB Guide: where AI use touches client data, file content, legal strategy, special-category data or substantive documents produced for the client, the client must be informed clearly and in recordable form and, where needed, express consent obtained. Clients may ask that AI not be used on their file.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "TBB Guide prohibited-use list: time saved by AI must not be billed as time actually spent by the lawyer, and AI learning costs or ordinary office software costs must not be passed to the client without prior notice and agreement. Using AI is not itself a ground for reducing the fee.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "guidance", "note": "TBB Guide prohibited-use list protects the advocacy monopoly: lawyers must not make 'guaranteed result' or 'lawyer-free legal advice' claims, must not present AI-assisted services as replacing legal judgement, and must not facilitate non-lawyers or systems appearing to give independent legal advice through AI.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "'Recommendation Guide on the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers', published by TBB on 28 Aug 2026, prepared by its Information and Technology Law Commission following the AI and Advocacy Workshop in Ankara on 14-15 Feb 2026. 44 pages, principle-based, expressly advisory and subject to periodic review. It notably bars profiling, scoring or comparing judges' decisions using their identity data, or attempting to predict a named judge's ruling in a given file.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB announcement of the Guide (28 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Haberler/tbb-avukatlikta-yapay-zeka-kullanimina-iliskin-tavsiye-rehberini-yayimladi-86648" }, { "label": "TBB Guide (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Deployment without a governing policy. The 2025 Presidential Annual Programme committed the Ministry of Justice to expanding AI in justice services and building decision-support and recommendation systems. In Aug 2026 the Ministry's IT Directorate rolled out an OCR-plus-classification module in UYAP for criminal miscellaneous requests.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Anadolu Agency on the 2025 Presidential Annual Programme justice measures (30 Oct 2024)", "url": "https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/bilim-teknoloji/adalet-hizmetlerinde-yapay-zeka-kullanimi-artirilacak/3379146" }, { "label": "UYAP AI file-analysis module (15 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://adalet.tv/haber/uyap-dosyalari-artik-otomatik-analiz-edilecek-63677" }, { "label": "Ministry of Justice press release, 'AI-supported new era in the judiciary' (12 May 2026)", "url": "https://basin.adalet.gov.tr/yargida-yapay-zek-destekli-yeni-donem" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "KVKK 'Generative AI and the Protection of Personal Data Guide (in 15 Questions)', Publication No. 113, published 24 Nov 2025, 64 pages, covering lawful basis, transparency, cross-border transfer, data-subject rights and security across the model lifecycle. It supplements KVKK's 2021 Recommendations on Personal Data Protection in the Field of AI.", "documents": [ "tr-kvkk-generative-ai-guide", "tr-tbmm-ai-commission-report-260" ], "sources": [ { "label": "KVKK announcement of the Generative AI Guide (24 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://www.kvkk.gov.tr/Icerik/8547/uretken-yapay-zeka-ve-kisisel-verilerin-korunmasi-rehberi-15-soruda" }, { "label": "KVKK Generative AI Guide (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.kvkk.gov.tr/SharedFolderServer/CMSFiles/MTY5MjNmNmIwZWY3YTE.pdf" }, { "label": "KVKK Recommendations on Personal Data Protection in the Field of AI (2021)", "url": "https://www.kvkk.gov.tr/Icerik/7048/Yapay-Zeka-Alaninda-Kisisel-Verilerin-Korunmasina-Dair-Tavsiyeler" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Artificial Intelligence Bill submitted to the Grand National Assembly on 25 Jun 2024 (first signatory Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu) remains 'in committee' before the Industry, Trade, Energy, Natural Resources, Information and Technology Committee, with the Justice Committee as secondary. The TBMM AI Research Commission's Report No. 260 (March 2026) recommends a framework AI law and a Turkish AI Authority.", "documents": [ "tr-ai-bill-2024", "tr-tbmm-ai-commission-report-260" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBMM bill record, status 'KOMİSYONDA'", "url": "https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/Yasama/KanunTeklifi/e21539a0-888a-4500-81be-01904a918c53" }, { "label": "SETA legal assessment of TBMM Report No. 260 (June 2026)", "url": "https://www.setav.org/turk-yapay-zeka-kanununa-dogru-tbmm-raporunun-hukuki-degerlendirmesi" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Sanctions run through existing criminal-complaint and bar disciplinary powers. Kızılcahamam civil court, June 2026: fabricated Court of Cassation case numbers in a pleading triggered a court criminal complaint plus an Ankara Bar investigation of lawyer E.Ç. Istanbul, Aug 2026: a non-existent Constitutional Court decision cited in a TRY 10m promissory-note case.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Hukuki Haber, investigation of lawyer over AI-fabricated case citations (18 Jun 2026)", "url": "https://www.hukukihaber.net/dilekcesinde-yapay-zekanin-uydurma-kunyelerini-kullanan-avukata-sorusturma" }, { "label": "Cumhuriyet, non-existent Constitutional Court decision relied on in court (24 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/turkiye/mahkemede-yapay-zeka-skandali-olmayan-aym-karari-dayanak-gosterildi-2531856" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026. The Istanbul Arbitration Centre (ISTAC) has published no AI rules or guidance note. The TBB Guide extends its verification and honesty duties to arbitrators and mediators but is not an institutional arbitration instrument.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ISTAC rules and announcements", "url": "https://www.istac.org.tr/en/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Recommended, not mandatory. The TBB Guide sets out a training matrix: an AI literacy, professional secrecy and data security module in trainee (staj) education; basic, intermediate and advanced in-service modules; office-wide rules training; and a TBB-coordinated trainer pool and materials standard for the bars.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The TBB Guide sets a vendor criteria table: legal data-set provenance and currency, data location and cross-border transfer basis, a contractual undertaking that prompts and documents are not used for model training, encryption, access control, MFA, logging, penetration testing, breach notification, transparency on error rates, and a written data-processor agreement.", "documents": [ "tr-tbb-ai-guide-lawyers", "tr-kvkk-generative-ai-guide" ], "sources": [ { "label": "TBB Recommendation Guide on AI Use for Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "TBB, Recommendation Guide on the Use of AI for Lawyers (official PDF, 28 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://d.barobirlik.org.tr/2026/yapayzekatavsiyerehberi.pdf" }, { "label": "TBB announcement of the Guide", "url": "https://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Haberler/tbb-avukatlikta-yapay-zeka-kullanimina-iliskin-tavsiye-rehberini-yayimladi-86648" }, { "label": "KVKK, Generative AI and Personal Data Protection Guide (24 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://www.kvkk.gov.tr/Icerik/8547/uretken-yapay-zeka-ve-kisisel-verilerin-korunmasi-rehberi-15-soruda" }, { "label": "TBMM, Artificial Intelligence Bill record (25 Jun 2024, in committee)", "url": "https://www.tbmm.gov.tr/Yasama/KanunTeklifi/e21539a0-888a-4500-81be-01904a918c53" }, { "label": "Ministry of Justice press release, AI-supported new era in the judiciary (12 May 2026)", "url": "https://basin.adalet.gov.tr/yargida-yapay-zek-destekli-yeni-donem" }, { "label": "Hukuki Haber, Turkish lawyer investigated over AI-fabricated citations (18 Jun 2026)", "url": "https://www.hukukihaber.net/dilekcesinde-yapay-zekanin-uydurma-kunyelerini-kullanan-avukata-sorusturma" } ] }, { "id": "ug", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ug", "name": "Uganda", "iso": "UG", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Uganda has no court, judiciary or Uganda Law Society rule on AI in legal practice. The Ministry of ICT said in March 2025 that Uganda was developing AI governance, with a policy or sector-driven approach expected; existing data-protection rules are general.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Judiciary of Uganda", "url": "https://judiciary.go.ug/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Uganda Law Society", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Ministry of ICT and National Guidance", "url": "https://ict.go.ug/media/news/shaping-ugandas-ai-future", "role": "ai-policy" }, { "name": "Data Protection and Privacy Office", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Uganda’s Data Protection and Privacy Act applies generally, but no Data Protection and Privacy Office guidance on AI or legal-service AI processing was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Ministry of ICT reported in March 2025 that Uganda was developing AI governance, with a decision expected by end-2025 on either a formal AI policy or sector-driven approach. No enacted AI statute or justice classification was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Uganda Ministry of ICT — Shaping Uganda’s AI Future", "url": "https://ict.go.ug/media/news/shaping-ugandas-ai-future" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Uganda Ministry of ICT — Shaping Uganda’s AI Future", "url": "https://ict.go.ug/media/news/shaping-ugandas-ai-future" }, { "label": "Judiciary of Uganda", "url": "https://judiciary.go.ug/" } ] }, { "id": "ua", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ua", "name": "Ukraine", "iso": "UA", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Ukraine has no binding AI law or legal-practice AI rule. The Ministry of Digital Transformation's 2024 White Paper and Roadmap set a bottom-up soft-law phase, including sandboxes, a voluntary code and sectoral recommendations, with lawyer and court guidelines still reported as under development.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Ukrainian National Bar Association", "url": "https://en.unba.org.ua/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Supreme Court of Ukraine", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Digital Transformation", "url": "https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/news/rehuliuvannia-shtuchnoho-intelektu-v-ukraini-mintsyfry-prezentuie-bilu-knyhu", "role": "ai-policy" }, { "name": "Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The AI White Paper programme says guidelines for courts are being developed during the preparatory soft-law stage. No issued Ukrainian judicial AI guidance was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — White Paper on AI Regulation in Ukraine", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/white-paper-on-ai-regulation-in-ukraine" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The White Paper programme says guidelines for lawyers are being developed. No issued UNBA rule, ethics opinion or practice note on generative AI was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — White Paper on AI Regulation in Ukraine", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/white-paper-on-ai-regulation-in-ukraine" }, { "label": "Ukrainian National Bar Association", "url": "https://en.unba.org.ua/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Ministry says first-stage tools will include recommendations on personal-data processing. No final AI-specific guidance from a Ukrainian data-protection authority was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine — Ministry presents AI White Paper", "url": "https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/news/rehuliuvannia-shtuchnoho-intelektu-v-ukraini-mintsyfry-prezentuie-bilu-knyhu" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Ukraine's 2024 White Paper and Roadmap adopt a bottom-up approach: two to three years of voluntary tools, sandboxing and sectoral guidance before a future law analogous to the EU AI Act.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine — Ministry presents AI White Paper", "url": "https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/news/rehuliuvannia-shtuchnoho-intelektu-v-ukraini-mintsyfry-prezentuie-bilu-knyhu" }, { "label": "OECD.AI — White Paper on AI Regulation in Ukraine", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/white-paper-on-ai-regulation-in-ukraine" }, { "label": "IBA — Regulation of artificial intelligence: Ukraine current approach", "url": "https://www.ibanet.org/Regulation-of-AI-Ukraine-current-approach" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine — Ministry presents AI White Paper", "url": "https://www.kmu.gov.ua/en/news/rehuliuvannia-shtuchnoho-intelektu-v-ukraini-mintsyfry-prezentuie-bilu-knyhu" }, { "label": "OECD.AI — White Paper on AI Regulation in Ukraine", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/white-paper-on-ai-regulation-in-ukraine" }, { "label": "IBA — Regulation of artificial intelligence: Ukraine current approach", "url": "https://www.ibanet.org/Regulation-of-AI-Ukraine-current-approach" }, { "label": "Ukrainian National Bar Association", "url": "https://en.unba.org.ua/" } ] }, { "id": "ae", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ae", "name": "United Arab Emirates", "iso": "AE", "region": "middle-east", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 the UAE regulates AI in legal practice only inside its common-law financial free zones. DIFC Courts Practical Guidance Note No. 2 of 2023 requires early declaration and verification of AI content; the ADGM Court made a wasted-costs order in Arabyads (18 Dec 2025). No onshore court rule or bar guidance exists.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.ae/en/artificial-intelligence.aspx", "role": "justice ministry and licensor of advocates (onshore federal)" }, { "name": "Legal Affairs Department of Dubai", "url": "https://legal.dubai.gov.ae/en/pages/default.aspx", "role": "regulator (Dubai advocates and legal consultants)" }, { "name": "DIFC Courts", "url": "https://www.difccourts.ae", "role": "court (Dubai International Financial Centre)" }, { "name": "ADGM Courts", "url": "https://www.adgm.com/adgm-courts", "role": "court (Abu Dhabi Global Market)" }, { "name": "UAE Office for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy and Remote Work Applications (UAE AI Office)", "url": "https://ai.gov.ae", "role": "AI policy" }, { "name": "Commissioner of Data Protection, DIFC", "url": "https://www.difc.com/business/registrars-and-commissioners/commissioner-of-data-protection", "role": "data protection (DIFC)" } ], "jurisdiction": "gulf", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "DIFC Courts Practical Guidance Note No. 2 of 2023 (21 Dec 2023) requires parties to declare at the earliest possible opportunity that they have used or intend to use AI-generated content. No onshore federal, Dubai or Abu Dhabi court rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DIFC Courts PGN No. 2 of 2023 (official)", "url": "https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/practice-directions/practical-guidance-note-no-2-2023-guidelines-use-large-language-models-and-generative-ai-proceedings-difc-courts" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "DIFC PGN 2/2023 requires AI-generated material to be verified for accuracy and reliability against independent sources before submission. In ADGM, Arabyads Holding v Alam (18 Dec 2025) held that verifying AI research, including that cited authorities exist, is a practitioner obligation.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DIFC Courts PGN No. 2 of 2023 (official)", "url": "https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/practice-directions/practical-guidance-note-no-2-2023-guidelines-use-large-language-models-and-generative-ai-proceedings-difc-courts" }, { "label": "Arabyads Holding Ltd v Gulrez Alam, costs judgment (ADGM, official PDF)", "url": "https://assets.adgm.com/download/assets/ADGMCFI-2025-165+-+Costs+Judgment+-+Justice+Paul+Heath+KC+-+18122025+SEALED.pdf/68b3146edcba11f0a1f22292341fda95" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published guidance for judges or court staff in the onshore courts, DIFC or ADGM as of 4 September 2026. The AI judicial platform announced on 28 July 2026 is described as leaving final judgments to judges, but no rule has been published.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning. Official announcements of the integrated AI judicial platform (28 Jul 2026) state judges retain sole authority over final rulings, but this is a design statement, not a published rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "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.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "guidance", "note": "DIFC PGN 2/2023 requires witness statements to remain in the intended witness's own words under RDC 29.24, addressing AI-drafted testimony. No wider rule on AI-generated or deepfake evidence.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DIFC Courts PGN No. 2 of 2023 (official)", "url": "https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/practice-directions/practical-guidance-note-no-2-2023-guidelines-use-large-language-models-and-generative-ai-proceedings-difc-courts" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "DIFC PGN 2/2023 requires practitioners using AI to comply with the DIFC Courts Mandatory Code of Conduct and applicable data-protection and IP law, and identifies protection of client confidentiality as a best practice.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DIFC Courts PGN No. 2 of 2023 (official)", "url": "https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/practice-directions/practical-guidance-note-no-2-2023-guidelines-use-large-language-models-and-generative-ai-proceedings-difc-courts" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No competence rule naming AI or technology for onshore, DIFC or ADGM practitioners found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No supervision rule naming AI. In Arabyads the ADGM Court made the wasted-costs order against the law firm rather than the individual lawyer, but decided the point under existing conduct rules.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients of or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific ruling or regulation on consumer AI legal services. General licensing of advocates and legal consultants by the Ministry of Justice and, in Dubai, the Legal Affairs Department, applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "The UAE has no independent national bar association; advocates are licensed by the Ministry of Justice and the emirate-level legal affairs departments. No generative-AI guidance for practitioners has been published by any of them as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No court-specific AI policy. The UAE Charter for the Development and Use of AI (UAE AI Office, July 2024) sets 12 non-binding principles for government AI, including human oversight and accountability. The Ministry of Justice runs AI services (Virtual Legal Advisor, 'Ask Adel' chatbot, smart OCR); an integrated AI judicial platform was announced 28 July 2026.", "documents": [ "ae-uae-charter-development-use-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "UAE Charter for the Development and Use of AI (official)", "url": "https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/strategies-initiatives-and-awards/policies/Ai/The-UAE-Charter-for-the-Development-and-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence" }, { "label": "Ministry of Justice — Artificial Intelligence (official)", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.ae/en/artificial-intelligence.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "DIFC Data Protection Regulation 10 on personal data processed through autonomous and semi-autonomous systems, in force 1 September 2023, is the first such rule in the MEASA region. It imposes notice, transparency, accountability, audit and certification duties on deployers and operators, including law firms in the DIFC.", "documents": [ "ae-uae-charter-development-use-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "DIFC Commissioner of Data Protection — Regulation 10 (official)", "url": "https://www.difc.com/business/registrars-and-commissioners/commissioner-of-data-protection/regulation-10" }, { "label": "Regulation 10 text (official PDF)", "url": "https://assets.difc.com/v1/media/edge/images/dubaiintern0078-difcexperie96c5-production-3253/media/project/difcexperiences/difc/difcwebsite/documents/registrars-and-commissioners/guidance-and-handbooks/lawful-processing/dp_regulation_10.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute. The UAE Charter for the Development and Use of AI (July 2024) is expressly a non-binding ethical framework; the National AI Strategy 2031 sets direction only.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "UAE Charter for the Development and Use of AI (official)", "url": "https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/strategies-initiatives-and-awards/policies/Ai/The-UAE-Charter-for-the-Development-and-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "In Arabyads Holding Ltd v Gulrez Alam Marghoob Alam [2025] ADGMCFI 0032 (18 Dec 2025), Justice Paul Heath KC ordered the defendant's former representatives, MIO Legal Consultants LLP, to pay AED 282,508 in wasted costs on an indemnity basis for a 327-paragraph defence containing fictitious and miscited authorities. The conduct was found reckless and a breach of the ADGM Rules of Conduct.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Arabyads Holding Ltd v Gulrez Alam, costs judgment (ADGM, official PDF)", "url": "https://assets.adgm.com/download/assets/ADGMCFI-2025-165+-+Costs+Judgment+-+Justice+Paul+Heath+KC+-+18122025+SEALED.pdf/68b3146edcba11f0a1f22292341fda95" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI rules or guidance published by the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) or the DIFC-LCIA successor bodies as of 4 September 2026. DIAC launched the DANA case-management platform in January 2026 and an AI partnership with Jus Mundi in June 2025, neither accompanied by AI conduct rules.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or CLE requirement found. The Abu Dhabi Judicial Academy has added AI topics to its programmes for lawyers seeking rights of audience, but this is not a published rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector vendor due-diligence rule. DIFC Regulation 10 imposes audit and certification duties on entities deploying AI to process personal data, recorded under data-protection.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [ { "name": "Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC)", "code": "AE-DU-DIFC", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "PGN No. 2 of 2023: parties must declare use or intended use of AI-generated content at the earliest possible opportunity; late disclosure risks adjournment.", "documents": [ "ae-difc-courts-practical-guidance-note-2-2023-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "DIFC Courts PGN No. 2 of 2023 (official)", "url": "https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/practice-directions/practical-guidance-note-no-2-2023-guidelines-use-large-language-models-and-generative-ai-proceedings-difc-courts" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "PGN No. 2 of 2023: AI output must be verified for accuracy and reliability against independent sources such as case law and statutes.", "documents": [ "ae-difc-courts-practical-guidance-note-2-2023-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "DIFC Courts PGN No. 2 of 2023 (official)", "url": "https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/practice-directions/practical-guidance-note-no-2-2023-guidelines-use-large-language-models-and-generative-ai-proceedings-difc-courts" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "PGN No. 2 of 2023 warns against over-reliance and says technology must not replace integral human decision-making, but imposes no prohibition on judicial use.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "guidance", "note": "PGN No. 2 of 2023 requires witness statements to remain in the witness's own words under RDC 29.24.", "documents": [ "ae-difc-courts-practical-guidance-note-2-2023-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "DIFC Courts PGN No. 2 of 2023 (official)", "url": "https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/practice-directions/practical-guidance-note-no-2-2023-guidelines-use-large-language-models-and-generative-ai-proceedings-difc-courts" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "PGN No. 2 of 2023 requires compliance with the Mandatory Code of Conduct and data-protection law and identifies client confidentiality as a best practice.", "documents": [ "ae-difc-courts-practical-guidance-note-2-2023-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "binding", "note": "DIFC Data Protection Regulation 10, in force 1 September 2023, governs personal data processed through autonomous and semi-autonomous systems.", "documents": [ "ae-difc-data-protection-regulation-10" ], "sources": [ { "label": "DIFC Regulation 10 (official)", "url": "https://www.difc.com/business/registrars-and-commissioners/commissioner-of-data-protection/regulation-10" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Common-law free zone with its own courts, Mandatory Code of Conduct for Legal Practitioners and data-protection regime. The only UAE jurisdiction with a court instrument on generative AI." }, { "name": "Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM)", "code": "AE-AZ-ADGM", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No ADGM practice direction requires disclosure or certification of AI use; the practice directions were last amended 1 September 2021.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ADGM Courts legislation and procedures (official)", "url": "https://www.adgm.com/adgm-courts/legislation-and-procedures" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Arabyads Holding Ltd v Gulrez Alam [2025] ADGMCFI 0032 (18 Dec 2025): 'It remains a legal practitioner's obligation to verify any research prepared by an AI tool', including that cited authorities exist and support the proposition advanced.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Arabyads costs judgment (ADGM, official PDF)", "url": "https://assets.adgm.com/download/assets/ADGMCFI-2025-165+-+Costs+Judgment+-+Justice+Paul+Heath+KC+-+18122025+SEALED.pdf/68b3146edcba11f0a1f22292341fda95" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "case-law", "note": "The wasted-costs order was made against the firm rather than the individual practitioner, locating responsibility for unverified AI research at firm level.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "AED 282,508 wasted costs on an indemnity basis against MIO Legal Consultants LLP; failure to verify AI-assisted research held to be a deliberate choice, reckless, and a breach of the ADGM Rules of Conduct.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Arabyads costs judgment (ADGM, official PDF)", "url": "https://assets.adgm.com/download/assets/ADGMCFI-2025-165+-+Costs+Judgment+-+Justice+Paul+Heath+KC+-+18122025+SEALED.pdf/68b3146edcba11f0a1f22292341fda95" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Common-law free zone applying English common law directly. ADGM Courts' practice directions were last amended on 1 September 2021 and contain no AI provision; the position is set by case law." } ], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "DIFC Courts — Practical Guidance Note No. 2 of 2023 on large language models and generative AI", "url": "https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/practice-directions/practical-guidance-note-no-2-2023-guidelines-use-large-language-models-and-generative-ai-proceedings-difc-courts" }, { "label": "ADGM — Arabyads Holding Ltd v Gulrez Alam, costs judgment (18 Dec 2025)", "url": "https://assets.adgm.com/download/assets/ADGMCFI-2025-165+-+Costs+Judgment+-+Justice+Paul+Heath+KC+-+18122025+SEALED.pdf/68b3146edcba11f0a1f22292341fda95" }, { "label": "DIFC Commissioner of Data Protection — Regulation 10 (autonomous and semi-autonomous systems)", "url": "https://www.difc.com/business/registrars-and-commissioners/commissioner-of-data-protection/regulation-10" }, { "label": "UAE Government — Charter for the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence", "url": "https://u.ae/en/about-the-uae/strategies-initiatives-and-awards/policies/Ai/The-UAE-Charter-for-the-Development-and-Use-of-Artificial-Intelligence" }, { "label": "UAE Ministry of Justice — Artificial Intelligence", "url": "https://www.moj.gov.ae/en/artificial-intelligence.aspx" }, { "label": "ADGM Courts — legislation and procedures (practice directions)", "url": "https://www.adgm.com/adgm-courts/legislation-and-procedures" } ] }, { "id": "gb", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/gb", "name": "United Kingdom", "iso": "GB", "region": "europe", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "England and Wales regulate AI in legal practice through professional guidance rather than court rules: SRA compliance tips and a 17 August 2026 warning notice, BSB guidance from 18 May 2026, judiciary guidance (v3, 31 October 2025), Bar Council and Law Society guidance. Courts enforce through costs orders and referrals (Ayinde, Bandla).", "regulators": [ { "name": "Solicitors Regulation Authority", "url": "https://www.sra.org.uk", "role": "regulator (solicitors)" }, { "name": "Bar Standards Board", "url": "https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk", "role": "regulator (barristers)" }, { "name": "Courts and Tribunals Judiciary", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Civil Justice Council", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/advisory-bodies/cjc/", "role": "advisory" }, { "name": "Information Commissioner's Office", "url": "https://ico.org.uk", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "uk", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No rule in force. The Civil Justice Council consulted from 17 Feb to 14 Apr 2026 and its 30 June 2026 interim findings reported consensus against an AI-specific requirement for professional drafting; the final report is pending. Contrast Ireland, which introduced a declaration requirement by practice direction on 1 Sep 2026.", "documents": [ "uk-cjc-ai-court-documents-consultation", "uk-cjc-ai-court-documents-interim-findings" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SRA warning notice on misuse of AI (17 Aug 2026) and judiciary guidance require verification of AI output; BSB guidance (18 May 2026) requires barristers to verify output before relying on it or presenting it to a court; Ayinde v Haringey (2025) states the professional duty.", "documents": [ "sra-misuse-ai-warning-notice", "uk-judiciary-ai-guidance", "uk-bsb-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Judiciary AI guidance for judicial office holders, v3 dated 31 October 2025. Issued for the courts and tribunals of England and Wales; the position for the Scottish and Northern Ireland judiciaries was not verified in this pass.", "documents": [ "uk-judiciary-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Judiciary guidance: AI may not be used to decide cases or draft reasoning; judges remain responsible.", "documents": [ "uk-judiciary-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "guidance", "note": "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).", "documents": [ "uk-judiciary-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Harber v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC), Find Case Law", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2023/1007" }, { "label": "Folarin v Immigration Services Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 135 (GRC), Find Case Law", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/grc/2026/135" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "case-law", "note": "No AI-specific evidence rule; deepfake and fabricated-document issues handled under existing authentication principles (Lodhia v Twelve Trees, 2026).", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SRA compliance tips and warning notice: client data must not enter tools without adequate protection or be used for training without authority. BSB guidance (18 May 2026) treats free consumer tools as generally unsuitable for confidential legal work.", "documents": [ "sra-compliance-tips-ai", "sra-misuse-ai-warning-notice", "uk-bsb-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SRA guidance applies the competence principle to AI use; BSB guidance reads AI use into Core Duties CD1, CD2, CD3, CD6, CD7 and CD10 for barristers.", "documents": [ "sra-compliance-tips-ai", "uk-bsb-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SRA effective-supervision guidance gained AI sections in June 2026; the warning notice names COLP duties.", "documents": [ "sra-effective-supervision-guidance", "sra-misuse-ai-warning-notice" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Law Society guidance recommends transparency with clients. For barristers the BSB goes further: where AI materially impacts the service provided, the client must be informed under rC19. No consent rule for solicitors.", "documents": [ "law-society-generative-ai-essentials", "uk-bsb-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "binding", "note": "Reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007 apply; the SRA authorised Garfield.Law, the first AI-only firm, in 2025.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Four current documents: BSB 'Guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence and Other Technologies' (from 18 May 2026), Bar Council 'Considerations when using ChatGPT and generative AI' (25 Nov 2025), Law Society 'Generative AI: the essentials' (June 2026) and the SRA's Risk Outlook report on AI in the legal market (Nov 2023), alongside the SRA's compliance tips and warning notice.", "documents": [ "uk-bsb-ai-guidance", "uk-bar-council-generative-ai-guidance", "law-society-generative-ai-essentials", "sra-risk-outlook-ai-legal-market" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Judiciary guidance covers court-provided tools; HMCTS pilots are not governed by a published rule.", "documents": [ "uk-judiciary-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ICO guidance on AI and data protection applies to legal services generally.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute; the EU AI Act reaches UK firms only when output is used in the EU. The UK is on the EU's adequacy list, which is why Austrian and German bar guidance names the UK as an acceptable hosting location for legal AI providers.", "documents": [ "eu-ai-act" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Ayinde v Haringey and Al-Haroun (Divisional Court, June 2025) set the framework: wasted costs, contempt, regulatory referral. Applied since in Bandla v SRA [2025] EWHC 1167 (Admin) (GBP 24,727.20 costs against a former solicitor who cited about 27 non-existent authorities) and Folarin [2026] UKFTT 135 (GRC). The UK remains the most enforcement-active jurisdiction in this group; German commentary (Anwaltsblatt) contrasts it with the largely consequence-free German position.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Bandla v SRA [2025] EWHC 1167 (Admin), Find Case Law", "url": "https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2025/1167" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Ciarb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration (Mar 2025, updated Sept 2025) is the reference text for London-seated arbitration; the LCIA opened a rules consultation on 11 Mar 2026 including AI disclosure and guardrails.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training requirement found as of 4 September 2026. Continuing competence is outcomes-based for both solicitors and barristers.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SRA compliance tips address due diligence on technology suppliers; BSB guidance requires barristers to assess whether a tool is suitable for confidential work.", "documents": [ "sra-compliance-tips-ai", "uk-bsb-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [ { "name": "Scotland", "code": "GB-SCT", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Scottish judiciary's position on AI was not verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Law Society of Scotland and Faculty of Advocates AI positions not verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Devolution note: the records on this page describe England and Wales. Scotland has separate regulators and a separate judiciary (Law Society of Scotland, Faculty of Advocates, Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service); its AI positions could not be verified in this pass and should be treated as unchecked rather than absent." }, { "name": "Northern Ireland", "code": "GB-NIR", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Northern Ireland judiciary's position on AI was not verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Law Society of Northern Ireland and Bar of Northern Ireland AI positions not verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not researched separately for this unit as of 4 September 2026; the country-level record above applies.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Devolution note: the records on this page describe England and Wales. Northern Ireland has separate regulators and a separate judiciary (Law Society of Northern Ireland, Bar of Northern Ireland, Lady Chief Justice's Office); its AI positions could not be verified in this pass and should be treated as unchecked rather than absent." } ], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "SRA: Misuse of AI warning notice", "url": "https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/misuse-ai/" }, { "label": "Judiciary: AI guidance for judicial office holders", "url": "https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/artificial-intelligence-ai-judicial-guidance-october-2025/" }, { "label": "Bar Standards Board: Artificial Intelligence guidance (May 2026, PDF)", "url": "https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/static/5e1baa5c-614c-4105-afae9a9ccdf8d97b/c0d1ed62-fcad-4a68-8ab810de5fa9b116/Artificial-Intelligence-Guidance-May-2026.pdf" }, { "label": "SRA: Risk Outlook report — the use of AI in the legal market (Nov 2023)", "url": "https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/risk-outlook-report-use-ai-legal-market/" } ] }, { "id": "us", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/us", "name": "United States", "iso": "US", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 the United States has no nationwide court rule on AI. Federal regulation is layered: ABA Formal Opinion 512 supplies the ethics baseline, individual district judges impose certification by standing order, and the Administrative Office issued judiciary-wide interim guidance on 31 July 2025. Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 was returned for study.", "regulators": [ { "name": "American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility", "url": "https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Administrative Office of the United States Courts / Judicial Conference", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/forms-rules/records-rules-committees", "role": "rule-maker" }, { "name": "United States Patent and Trademark Office", "url": "https://www.uspto.gov/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review", "url": "https://www.justice.gov/eoir", "role": "regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "us-federal", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "No judiciary-wide rule. Binding only where an individual judge has issued a standing order: Judge Starr (N.D. Tex.) requires a signed certificate, Judges Fuentes (N.D. Ill.), Baylson (E.D. Pa.), Graham (S.D. Ohio) and Berger (M.D. Fla.) require disclosure or certification. The Fifth Circuit rejected a circuit-wide certification rule in June 2024.", "documents": [ "us-nd-tex-starr-ai-certification", "us-nd-ill-fuentes-standing-order-genai", "us-ed-pa-baylson-ai-standing-order", "us-sd-ohio-graham-genai-standing-order", "us-md-fla-berger-ai-standing-order", "us-ca5-proposed-rule-32-3-genai-certification", "us-eoir-pm-25-40-generative-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "binding", "note": "Rule 11(b) certification plus ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 Jul 2024) require verification of AI output before filing. Federal courts have held that submitting fabricated authorities violates Rule 11 even where the underlying proposition is correct, and that counsel must personally read every citation.", "documents": [ "aba-formal-opinion-512", "uspto-ai-tools-practice-guidance", "us-ao-judiciary-interim-ai-guidance", "us-eoir-pm-25-40-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ABA Formal Opinion 512 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Administrative Office's AI Task Force issued interim guidance judiciary-wide on 31 July 2025 (not published in full). It directs judiciary users to review and independently verify AI output, cautions against delegating core judicial functions, and asks courts to define approved tasks and tools.", "documents": [ "us-ao-judiciary-interim-ai-guidance", "us-eoir-pm-25-40-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "US Courts — Court Operations, Director's Annual Report 2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025" }, { "label": "Administrative Office letter to Senator Grassley on judiciary use of AI (PDF)", "url": "https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ao_to_grassley_re_judiciary_use_of_ai.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No binding prohibition. The July 2025 interim guidance cautions against delegating core judicial functions, including decision making and case adjudication, and advises extreme caution on novel legal questions. Individual judges (for example Judge Neals, D.N.J.) have adopted chambers policies barring clerk and intern AI drafting.", "documents": [ "us-ao-judiciary-interim-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "US Courts — Court Operations, Director's Annual Report 2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025" }, { "label": "Judge Neals letter to Senator Grassley (PDF)", "url": "https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/neals_to_grassley_re_judiciary_use_of_ai.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "binding", "note": "Binding only in courts whose standing orders extend to self-represented parties: Judge Starr's certification and Judge Fuentes's order apply to pro se filers as well as counsel. There is no judiciary-wide guidance for litigants in person.", "documents": [ "us-nd-tex-starr-ai-certification", "us-nd-ill-fuentes-standing-order-genai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 would apply Rule 702 reliability standards to machine-generated evidence offered without an expert. Comment closed 16 Feb 2026; the Standing Committee declined to recommend adoption on 3–4 June 2026 and returned it for further study with deepfake issues.", "documents": [ "us-fre-707-machine-generated-evidence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "US Courts — Standing Committee agenda book, June 2026 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/2026-06_standing_committee_meeting_agenda_book_final.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ABA Formal Opinion 512 requires informed client consent before confidential information is entered into a self-learning tool. USPTO guidance (11 Apr 2024) bars entering confidential or export-controlled client information into tools that may disclose it.", "documents": [ "aba-formal-opinion-512", "uspto-ai-tools-practice-guidance" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Model Rule 1.1 comment 8 (technological competence) as applied by ABA Formal Opinion 512: lawyers must understand the benefits and risks of the generative AI tools they use. The Model Rules bind only as adopted by each state and by federal courts through local rules.", "documents": [ "aba-formal-opinion-512" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ABA Formal Opinion 512 applies Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3: managerial and supervisory lawyers must establish policies for AI use by lawyers, non-lawyer staff and AI vendors.", "documents": [ "aba-formal-opinion-512" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ABA Formal Opinion 512 requires informed consent under Rule 1.6 before client confidential information goes into a self-learning tool, and discusses when Rule 1.4 requires telling a client that AI was used. No federal disclosure-to-client rule.", "documents": [ "aba-formal-opinion-512" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ABA Formal Opinion 512 holds that a lawyer may not bill for time saved by AI, may not charge the client for learning to use a tool, and must disclose how AI costs will be treated before charging them on.", "documents": [ "aba-formal-opinion-512" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "Unauthorised practice of law is regulated exclusively by the states; no federal rule, ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services was found as of 4 September 2026. Federal consumer-protection enforcement against deceptive AI legal-services claims has proceeded under the FTC Act rather than any AI-specific rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "ABA Formal Opinion 512 (29 Jul 2024) is the national ethics baseline. Sector regulators have added their own: USPTO practice guidance (11 Apr 2024) and DOJ EOIR Policy Memorandum 25-40 (8 Aug 2025) for immigration proceedings.", "documents": [ "aba-formal-opinion-512", "uspto-ai-tools-practice-guidance", "us-eoir-pm-25-40-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "EOIR PM 25-40, Use of Generative AI in EOIR Proceedings (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410621/dl?inline=" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The AO established an advisory AI Task Force in early 2025 and issued interim guidance on 31 July 2025 covering use, procurement and security of AI tools; courts are encouraged to define locally approved tools and tasks. The September 2025 judiciary Strategic Plan calls for a formal AI governance framework.", "documents": [ "us-ao-judiciary-interim-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "US Courts — Court Operations, Director's Annual Report 2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "There is no federal comprehensive data-protection statute and no federal DPA guidance addressed to AI in legal services; confidentiality of client data is handled through professional conduct rules (ABA Formal Opinion 512) rather than privacy regulation.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No federal AI statute and no risk classification of justice-sector uses. The Executive Order of 11 December 2025, Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence, seeks to preempt state AI laws and created a DOJ AI Litigation Task Force (announced 9 Jan 2026); it imposes no obligations on legal practice.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Federal courts sanction AI misuse under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. 1927 and inherent power. Mata v. Avianca (S.D.N.Y. 2023) set the pattern; Withers v. City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss., June 2026) removed all four counsel for fabricated authorities; by mid-2026 more than a thousand US decisions had addressed AI-fabricated material.", "documents": [ "us-eoir-pm-25-40-generative-ai" ], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The AAA-ICDR issued Guidance on Arbitrators' Use of AI Tools (2025): AI must support not replace the arbitrator's judgment, and use must be disclosed where it materially affects the process or reasoning. JAMS adopted dedicated AI Disputes Rules in 2024 barring delegation of decision-making to AI.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AAA-ICDR — Guidance on Arbitrators' Use of AI Tools (PDF)", "url": "http://go.adr.org/rs/294-SFS-516/images/2025_AAA-ICDR%20Guidance%20on%20Arbitrators%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tools%20(2).pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No federal mandatory AI training requirement. Continuing legal education is a state function; several states have added technology or AI credits, which are scored in the state matrix.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The AO's July 2025 interim guidance addresses procurement and security of AI tools for courts. For executive-branch legal offices, OMB Memorandum M-25-21 (3 Apr 2025) required each agency to adopt a generative-AI acceptable-use policy with safeguards by about 29 December 2025.", "documents": [ "us-ao-judiciary-interim-ai-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "US Courts — Court Operations, Director's Annual Report 2025 (official)", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [ { "name": "Alabama", "code": "AL", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Alabama Supreme Court rule or statewide standing order requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 2026-09-04. Formal Opinion 2026-01 instead tells lawyers to check each court's local rules and standing orders for AI disclosure or certification requirements.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Alabama State Bar Formal Opinion 2026-01 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Alabama judiciary policy on the use of generative AI by judges or court staff found as of 2026-09-04. The Alabama Supreme Court has addressed AI only through adjudication (Ibach v. Stewart), not through an administrative order.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Alabama Rules of Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Formal Opinion 2026-01 section V (ARPC 1.6): input is disclosure. Lawyers should prefer enterprise or closed systems, anonymise prompts, obtain informed client consent where confidentiality risk cannot be eliminated, and treat prompts, drafts and interaction logs as potentially discoverable.", "documents": [ "us-al-state-bar-formal-opinion-2026-01" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Alabama State Bar Formal Opinion 2026-01 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Formal Opinion 2026-01 section VIII (ARPC 1.5): a lawyer may bill only for time actually spent, not for time that would have been spent but for AI; review and judgment time is billable; AI subscription costs are overhead unless the client agrees otherwise in writing; disclose AI use where it affects fees.", "documents": [ "us-al-state-bar-formal-opinion-2026-01" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Alabama State Bar Formal Opinion 2026-01 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Alabama State Bar Formal Opinion 2026-01, 'Artificial Intelligence Use: Best Practices Under Existing Professional Conduct Rules' (published May 2026). Covers generative and agentic AI; states AI creates no new duties but recontextualises ARPC 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.1, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3. Includes a per-matter compliance checklist.", "documents": [ "us-al-state-bar-formal-opinion-2026-01" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Alabama State Bar Formal Opinion 2026-01 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf" }, { "label": "Alabama State Bar formal opinions landing page", "url": "https://www.alabar.org/office-of-general-counsel/formal-opinions/artificial-intelligence-use-best-practices-under-existing-professional-conduct-rules/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Ibach v. Stewart, No. SC-2025-0106, 2026 Ala. LEXIS 45 (Ala. 24 Apr 2026): the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because the appellants' briefs cited fabricated authorities obtained by improper AI use, after a show-cause hearing at which counsel admitted the cases did not exist. Cited by the State Bar in Formal Opinion 2026-01.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Ibach v. Stewart (Ala. 2026-04-24), opinion", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10847586/laurie-ibach-and-mark-stewart-v-bruce-stewart-individually-as-trustee-of/" }, { "label": "Alabama State Bar Formal Opinion 2026-01 citing the case", "url": "https://www.alabar.org/assets/2026/05/FO-2026-01.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No court rule on AI, but the Alabama State Bar issued Formal Opinion 2026-01 (May 2026) and the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed an appeal and sanctioned counsel for AI-fabricated citations in Ibach v. Stewart (24 April 2026)." }, { "name": "Alaska", "code": "AK", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Alaska Court System rule or administrative order requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04. Ethics Opinion 2025-1 says only that lawyers must comply where a court does require disclosure.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Alaska Court System policy governing use of generative AI by judges or court staff found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Alaska Rules of Evidence amendment or guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion 2025-1 Q3: before inputting client confidences or secrets, the lawyer must review the tool's data-retention, data-sharing and self-learning policies. If confidences are not protected, inputs must be anonymised; the opinion prefers closed systems with contractual confidentiality assurances.", "documents": [ "us-ak-bar-ethics-opinion-2025-1" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Alaska Bar Ethics Opinion 2025-1 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion 2025-1 Q4 and Q5: a lawyer may bill the cost of generative AI only if the client's liability and the basis of the charge are disclosed within a reasonable time after the representation begins; fees must remain reasonable and proportionate to actual work; a lawyer may not duplicate fees for work done by AI or bill for time not…", "documents": [ "us-ak-bar-ethics-opinion-2025-1" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Alaska Bar Ethics Opinion 2025-1 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1, 'Generative Artificial Intelligence and the Practice of Law', approved by the Ethics Committee 3 April 2025 and adopted by the Board of Governors 23 April 2025. Six questions-and-answers on permissibility, review duty, confidentiality, billing and supervision under the ARPC.", "documents": [ "us-ak-bar-ethics-opinion-2025-1" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Alaska Bar Ethics Opinion 2025-1 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-1.pdf" }, { "label": "Alaska Bar adopted ethics opinions index", "url": "https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Alaska state-court sanction or discipline for AI-fabricated citations found as of 2026-09-04 (CourtListener search of Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals returned no hits). One federal case, Legarza v. Northern Star (Alaska), Inc. (D. Alaska, Feb 2026), is reported but is federal and unverified here.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Alaska's only instrument is Alaska Bar Association Ethics Opinion 2025-1 (adopted 23 April 2025), a detailed generative-AI opinion; no court rule, judicial policy or reported state-court AI sanction found." }, { "name": "Arizona", "code": "AZ", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No statewide Arizona rule requires attorneys to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 2026-09-04. The AISC best practices defer to individual court rules; individual judges may impose chambers requirements.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AISC Generative AI: Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "ACJA section 1-509 (Use of Generative AI Technology and Large Language Models), adopted by Administrative Order 2024-207 effective 30 Oct 2024 and amended by Administrative Order 2025-24 effective 29 Jan 2025, binds court employees and court systems: tiered tool-approval list maintained by the Administrative Director, judicial-officer approval before AI use in their work, confidentiality and verification duties.", "documents": [ "az-acja-1-509-generative-ai", "us-az-aisc-generative-ai-best-practices", "us-az-judicial-conduct-rule-2-5-technology-competence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ACJA 1-509 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf" }, { "label": "Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct 2025 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://azcjc.azcourts.gov/Portals/5/137/rules/2025%20Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Arizona Rules of Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "AISC best practices: when in doubt, do not enter confidential or non-public information into a generative AI tool. State Bar guidance: confidential client information must not be entered into generative AI platforms unless adequate safeguards are in place (ER 1.6). ACJA 1-509 imposes parallel confidentiality limits on court staff.", "documents": [ "az-acja-1-509-generative-ai", "us-az-aisc-generative-ai-best-practices" ], "sources": [ { "label": "AISC Ethical Best Practices (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf" }, { "label": "ACJA 1-509 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/0/admcode/pdfcurrentcode/1-509%20Use%20of%20AI%20Tech%20and%20LLMs%2001_2025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "AISC best practices (14 Nov 2024): a lawyer billing hourly may not bill clients for time saved by using AI. State Bar Practice 2.0 guidance adds that fees for AI-assisted services must be reasonable under ER 1.5, hourly fees may not exceed actual time expended, and AI-related costs must be disclosed in fee agreements.", "documents": [ "us-az-aisc-generative-ai-best-practices" ], "sources": [ { "label": "AISC Ethical Best Practices (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Two non-binding instruments. (1) State Bar of Arizona, Guidance for the Use of Generative AI in the Practice of Law (Practice 2.0 programme, undated page). (2) Arizona Steering Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, Generative AI: Ethical Best Practices for Lawyers and Judges (14 Nov 2024), issued under Administrative Order 2024-33.", "documents": [ "us-az-aisc-generative-ai-best-practices" ], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar of Arizona AI best-practices page (official)", "url": "https://www.azbar.org/for-legal-professionals/practice-tools-management/practice-2-0/choosing-and-using-technology/best-practices-for-using-artificial-intelligence/" }, { "label": "AISC Ethical Best Practices (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/74/AISC%20Ethical%20Best%20Practices%20Guidance_For%20Publication.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Arizona appellate courts have begun addressing AI-fabricated authority. Dineen/Shibata v. Kotchka, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0606 PB (Ariz. Ct. App., 15 Jul 2026) is the Arizona appellate decision located in a full-text search for AI hallucination language; further 2026 Court of Appeals memorandum decisions are reported by secondary trackers but were not opened in this run.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Dineen/Shibata v. Kotchka (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026-07-15)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10931696/dineenshibata-v-kotchka/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Arizona regulates the court side hard (ACJA 1-509 and a first-in-nation judicial technology-competence rule) but has no formal attorney ethics opinion; the Supreme Court's AI Steering Committee issued non-binding best practices for lawyers and judges in November 2024." }, { "name": "Arkansas", "code": "AR", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "Administrative Order No. 25 does not require pre-filing disclosure or certification of AI use; it targets exposure of confidential or sealed court information to generative AI. No Arkansas circuit court attorney-facing AI disclosure rule found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "In re Creation of Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 25: Artificial Intelligence, 2025 Ark. 117 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_Re_Creation_of_Admin_Order_No_25_AI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Administrative Order No. 25 (2025 Ark. 117) restricts the judicial branch: court personnel with internal CourtConnect access may not intentionally expose court system data to any external generative AI tool, and disclosure of confidential or sealed information to a generative AI model may violate Administrative Order No. 19, the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct.", "documents": [ "us-ar-admin-order-25-artificial-intelligence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Administrative Order No. 25 (PDF, official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_Re_Creation_of_Admin_Order_No_25_AI.pdf" }, { "label": "Arkansas Advocate report on the order (2025-06-09)", "url": "https://arkansasadvocate.com/2025/06/09/arkansas-supreme-court-releases-proposed-rule-for-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Arkansas Rules of Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "Administrative Order No. 25 makes intentional or inadvertent disclosure of confidential or sealed client or case information to a generative AI model a potential violation of Administrative Order No. 19, the ARPC and the Code of Judicial Conduct. It is narrower than ARPC 1.6, which remains the general guardrail for client data.", "documents": [ "us-ar-admin-order-25-artificial-intelligence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Administrative Order No. 25 (PDF, official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/In_Re_Creation_of_Admin_Order_No_25_AI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "Neither Administrative Order No. 25 nor the 2025 Rules of Professional Conduct amendments address billing for AI-assisted work; ARPC 1.5 applies unmodified. No Arkansas fee guidance on AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No numbered Arkansas Bar Association formal ethics opinion on AI. The Arkansas Bar Association AI Task Force's positions were instead adopted by the Supreme Court as binding amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct (In re Amendments to the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct, 2025 Ark. 115), notably to Rule 5.3 (nonlawyer assistance) and the Preamble, making the supervising lawyer…", "documents": [ "us-ar-rpc-ai-amendments-2025" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Arkansas Judiciary (official site, per curiams 2025 Ark. 115 and 117)", "url": "https://arcourts.gov/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Hrdlichka v. Bengston (Ark. Ct. App., 1 Apr 2026) is the Arkansas state appellate decision located in a full-text search for AI hallucination language. In re Dana McClain (Ark., Dec 2025), a Supreme Court show-cause order over AI-fabricated citations and possible upload of sealed juvenile material, is reported by secondary trackers but was not opened in this run.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Hrdlichka v. Bengston (Ark. Ct. App. 2026-04-01)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10832132/patrick-hrdlichka-v-samantha-bengston/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Arkansas acted through the Supreme Court rather than the bar: Administrative Order No. 25 on artificial intelligence (2025 Ark. 117) plus AI-related amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct (2025 Ark. 115); no numbered bar ethics opinion." }, { "name": "California", "code": "CA", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No statewide California rule requires attorneys to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 2026-09-04. Rule 10.430 and Standard 10.80 govern court-side use, not attorney filings; whether an individual trial court has imposed an attorney-facing requirement under its Rule 10.430 policy must be checked locally.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "California Rule of Court 10.430 (official)", "url": "https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430" }, { "label": "COPRAC proposed AI amendments, public comment page (official)", "url": "https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public/public-meetings-comment/public-comment/public-comment-archives/2026-public-comment/proposed-amendments-rules-professional-conduct-related-artificial-intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Rule of Court 10.430 and Standard 10.80, adopted by the Judicial Council on 18 July 2025 and effective 1 Sep 2025, require every California court that allows generative AI use by judicial officers or staff to adopt a written use policy by 15 Dec 2025 addressing confidentiality, bias, human review of output and disclosure where public-facing content is fully AI-generated.", "documents": [ "ca-rule-of-court-10-430-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "California Rule of Court 10.430 (official)", "url": "https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/ten/rule10_430" }, { "label": "Standard 10.80 (official)", "url": "https://courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index/standards/Standard10_80" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No California Evidence Code amendment or Judicial Council rule on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04. AB 2013 and SB 942 (operative 1 Jan 2026) regulate AI training-data disclosure and content provenance generally, not admissibility.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Practical Guidance: a lawyer must not input confidential client information into an AI tool without first verifying adequate confidentiality, security and data-retention protections; each platform's terms of service must be reviewed for data handling, third-party sharing and model-training use. Proposed Rule 1.6 comment would define 'reveal' to include exposing confidential information to AI systems where that creates material risk.", "documents": [ "ca-state-bar-generative-ai-practical-guidance", "ca-rule-of-court-10-430-generative-ai", "ca-state-bar-proposed-ai-rule-amendments" ], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar Practical Guidance (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Practical Guidance (16 Nov 2023): time saved by AI efficiency may not be billed to the client; only actual time spent refining prompts and reviewing output is billable; AI costs may be charged only in accordance with the fee agreement and Rules 1.5 and 1.5.1.", "documents": [ "ca-state-bar-generative-ai-practical-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar Practical Guidance (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "State Bar of California, Practical Guidance for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law, approved by the Board of Trustees 16 Nov 2023 (COPRAC; first US state bar generative-AI guidance). Not a numbered CAL formal opinion and described by the State Bar as a living document.", "documents": [ "ca-state-bar-generative-ai-practical-guidance", "ca-state-bar-proposed-ai-rule-amendments" ], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar Practical Guidance (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf" }, { "label": "State Bar AI resource page (official)", "url": "https://www.calbar.ca.gov/legal-professionals/ethics-compliance-practice-resources/ethics/ethics-technology-resources/artificial-intelligence" }, { "label": "Proposed AI rule amendments, public comment (official)", "url": "https://www.calbar.ca.gov/public/public-meetings-comment/public-comment/public-comment-archives/2026-public-comment/proposed-amendments-rules-professional-conduct-related-artificial-intelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Multiple California Court of Appeal decisions since late 2025 address AI-fabricated authority, including Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P., No. B331918 (Cal. Ct. App., 12 Sep 2025), which imposed sanctions on appellate counsel for a brief containing fabricated quotations, and Del Biaggio v. Bansen, No. A174647 (Cal. Ct. App., 10 Jul 2026).", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. (Cal. Ct. App. 2025-09-12)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10670865/noland-v-land-of-the-free-lp/" }, { "label": "Del Biaggio v. Bansen (Cal. Ct. App. 2026-07-10)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10925595/del-biaggio-v-bansen/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The most layered US state: first-in-nation bar guidance (Nov 2023), first statewide court rule on judicial AI use (Rule 10.430 and Standard 10.80, effective 1 Sep 2025), and proposed binding Rules of Professional Conduct amendments out for comment in 2026." }, { "name": "Colorado", "code": "CO", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Colorado state-court rule requires attorneys to disclose or certify AI use in filings as of 2026-09-04. Rule Change 2026(02) is a Rules of Professional Conduct amendment, not a filing rule. A civil-rules-committee proposal for a filings AI certification was under consideration in late 2025 with no published draft text.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Rule Change 2026(02) (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No published Colorado Judicial Department chief justice directive or policy on judicial and court-staff use of generative AI was located in this run. Chief Justice Marquez announced a Legal Technology Advisory Committee (chaired by Judge Lino Lipinsky, Court of Appeals) in September 2025 to develop ethics-focused AI guidance; no output verified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Colorado Rules of Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "Rule Change 2026(02) Comment [9] to RPC 1.1 lists preservation of client confidential information (Rule 1.6) among the duties implicated by AI use, and Preamble [20A] states a lawyer who uses technology directly or indirectly may be disciplined for a resulting rules violation. No separate Colorado AI confidentiality standard beyond Rule 1.6.", "documents": [ "us-co-rule-change-2026-02-ai-rpc-amendments" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Rule Change 2026(02) (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "binding", "note": "Rule Change 2026(02) new Comment [9] to RPC 1.1 expressly lists reasonable fees (Rule 1.5) among the rules a lawyer's use of AI can implicate, but sets no separate billing standard; Rule 1.5 applies unmodified. No Colorado-specific AI billing guidance found.", "documents": [ "us-co-rule-change-2026-02-ai-rpc-amendments" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Rule Change 2026(02) (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No formal Colorado Bar Association ethics opinion on AI; the CBA ethics opinion series through Opinion 149 (Mar 2024) contains none. The nearest instrument is educational commentary in the CBA's official journal by a sitting Supreme Court Justice and a Court of Appeals judge: Berkenkotter and Lipinsky, 'Artificial Intelligence and Professional Conduct', 53 Colo. Law. 20 (Jan/Feb 2024).", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Berkenkotter and Lipinsky, Colorado Lawyer (CBA official publication)", "url": "https://cl.cobar.org/features/artificial-intelligence-and-professional-conduct/" }, { "label": "Rule Change 2026(02) (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2026-01/Rule%20Change%202026(02).pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "People v. Crabill, 23PDJ067 (Colo. O.P.D.J., 22 Nov 2023): stipulated discipline of one year and one day suspension, 90 days to serve, for filing ChatGPT-generated fictitious citations, failing to correct them and blaming an intern (Colo. RPC 1.1, 1.3, 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c)).", "documents": [ "us-co-people-v-crabill-discipline", "us-co-al-hamim-star-hearthstone" ], "sources": [ { "label": "People v. Crabill, stipulation to discipline (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.coloradolegalregulation.com/wp-content/uploads/PDJ/Decisions/Crabill,%20Stipulation%20to%20Discipline,%2023PDJ067,%2011-22-23.pdf" }, { "label": "Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC, 2024 COA 128 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/system/files/opinions-2024-12/24CA0190-PD.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "First US jurisdiction to write AI into its lawyer ethics rules: Rule Change 2026(02), adopted en banc 8 January 2026, added Preamble/Scope [20A] and new Comment [9] to RPC 1.1. Colorado also produced the earliest US AI discipline case, People v. Crabill (2023)." }, { "name": "Connecticut", "code": "CT", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Practice Book section 4-9, effective on publication in the Connecticut Law Journal 23 Jun 2026: any person who uses generative AI to create or edit a filed document must independently verify all citations, legal authorities and evidence it produced; failure may result in sanctions including nonsuit or default judgment.", "documents": [ "ct-practice-book-4-9-genai-compliance", "us-ct-ai-legal-system-committee-final-report" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Connecticut Law Journal, Practice Book amendments 23 Jun 2026 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/Docs/LJDocs/Misc/2026/26/pblj_8752.pdf" }, { "label": "Connecticut Judicial Branch news post on section 4-9 (official)", "url": "https://www.jud.ct.gov/legalresources/NewsLog/Post?id=6805" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Connecticut Judicial Branch Responsible AI Policy Framework v2.1 (1 Feb 2024) governs how the branch procures, deploys and monitors AI. The Committee on Artificial Intelligence in the Connecticut Legal System (co-chaired by Justice Steven D. Ecker) issued its Final Report on 10 Aug 2026, setting guiding principles (judicial independence, transparency, human oversight of AI output, confidentiality, cybersecurity) and recording that…", "documents": [ "ct-judicial-branch-responsible-ai-policy-framework", "us-ct-ai-legal-system-committee-final-report" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Responsible AI Policy Framework v2.1 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.jud.ct.gov/faq/CTJBResponsibleAIPolicyFramework2.1.24.pdf" }, { "label": "Committee on AI in the Connecticut Legal System, Final Report 10 Aug 2026 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/FinalReport_R.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No amendment to the Connecticut Code of Evidence on AI-generated evidence yet. The Final Report (10 Aug 2026) records that the Connecticut Code of Evidence Oversight Committee, chaired by Judge Hope C. Seeley, is reviewing whether changes are needed to address generative AI; no proposal published as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Committee on AI in the Connecticut Legal System, Final Report (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.jud.ct.gov/committees/artificial_intelligence_CLS/FinalReport_R.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No attorney-facing Connecticut rule on client data in AI tools. The Judicial Branch Responsible AI Policy Framework v2.1 imposes confidentiality, privacy and security review duties on the Branch's own AI deployments, and the AI committee's Final Report lists protection of confidential information and cybersecurity among its governing principles.", "documents": [ "ct-judicial-branch-responsible-ai-policy-framework" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Responsible AI Policy Framework v2.1 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.jud.ct.gov/faq/CTJBResponsibleAIPolicyFramework2.1.24.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Connecticut rule or bar guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04; Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 applies unmodified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Connecticut Bar Association formal or informal ethics opinion on generative AI as of 2026-09-04. The CBA has a Generative AI Committee but has published no attorney-facing opinion; the Judicial Branch AI committee concluded that rulemaking, not a new ethics opinion, had addressed the question.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "CBA informal ethics opinions index (official)", "url": "https://www.ctbar.org/news/CBAPublications/informal-ethics-opinions" }, { "label": "CBA Generative AI Committee (official)", "url": "https://www.ctbar.org/members/sections-and-committees/committees/generative-ai-committee" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Connecticut Superior Court sanctions activity is reported, including Hussain v. Quraishi (Conn. Super. Ct., Mar 2026) and an August 2026 Superior Court ruling (Ansonia/Milford) sanctioning a self-represented litigant for concealing prompt-injection text in a filing, described as the first documented prompt-injection attack aimed at a US court.", "documents": [ "ct-practice-book-4-9-genai-compliance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Hussain v. Quraishi (Conn. Super. Ct., Mar 2026) index entry", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=Hussain+v.+Quraishi&type=o&court=connsuperct" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Among the first US states with a binding statewide filing rule: Practice Book section 4-9 (effective 23 June 2026) requires independent verification of everything generative AI produces, backed by nonsuit or default. No bar ethics opinion." }, { "name": "Delaware", "code": "DE", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Delaware court rule requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 2026-09-04. The Court of Chancery has instead policed fabricated authority case by case under existing rules.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Supreme Court of Delaware, Interim Policy on the Use of Generative AI by Judicial Officers and Court Personnel (21 Oct 2024): only approved tools may be used, users must complete training, decision-making may not be delegated to AI, and users remain responsible for verifying output and protecting confidentiality. Applies across the Delaware judiciary.", "documents": [ "de-supreme-court-genai-interim-policy" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Delaware Judiciary Interim GenAI Policy (PDF, official)", "url": "https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266868" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Delaware Rules of Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Interim Policy requires judicial officers and court personnel to protect confidentiality of any material used with generative AI and limits use to approved tools; there is no attorney-facing Delaware confidentiality rule specific to AI, so DLRPC 1.6 applies unmodified.", "documents": [ "de-supreme-court-genai-interim-policy" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Delaware Judiciary Interim GenAI Policy (PDF, official)", "url": "https://courts.delaware.gov/forms/download.aspx?id=266868" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Delaware rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Delaware State Bar Association or Delaware Supreme Court ethics opinion on generative AI as of 2026-09-04. The Delaware Commission on Law and Technology publishes practice resources, and Delaware adopted the ABA technology-competence comment to Rule 1.1 in 2013.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Delaware Commission on Law and Technology publications (official)", "url": "https://courts.delaware.gov/declt/resources.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Court of Chancery: An v. Archblock, Inc., C.A. No. 2024-0102-LWW (Del. Ch., 4 Apr 2025), where the court addressed a motion that fabricated authority that did not exist; and Leiske v. Kidd, C.A. No. 2025-0426-CDW (Del. Ch., 1 Jul 2026), where an answering brief contained fictitious citations, fabricated quotations and hallucinated legal authority.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "An v. Archblock, Inc. (Del. Ch. 2025-04-04)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10373608/daniel-jaiyong-an-v-archblock-inc/" }, { "label": "Leiske v. Kidd (Del. Ch. 2026-07-01)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10885202/kevin-leiske-v-robert-gregory-kidd/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No bar ethics opinion, but an early judicial-branch policy (Supreme Court Interim Policy, 21 Oct 2024) and an unusually active Court of Chancery on fabricated citations." }, { "name": "District of Columbia", "code": "DC", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "Neither the D.C. Court of Appeals nor the D.C. Superior Court has a court-wide rule or standing order requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 2026-09-04. Opinion 388 directs lawyers to be attentive to duties of candour, especially before tribunals that have adopted AI rules or orders.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388 (official)", "url": "https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The DC Courts maintain a public Artificial Intelligence page and an Internal Use Policy for AI covering judicial and court personnel. The policy PDF returned HTTP 403 from this run and was not opened, so its terms are unverified.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Artificial Intelligence and the DC Courts (official landing page)", "url": "https://www.dccourts.gov/dc-courts/artificial-Intelligence" }, { "label": "DC Courts AI Internal Use Policy (PDF, official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/Internal-Use-Policy-Final-without-Attachments.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No D.C. rule or guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion 388: lawyers must determine whether the product saves information they provide and whether their interaction will affect answers given to future users outside the firm. An affirmative answer to either signals caution; the lawyer must then choose a trustworthy product, negotiate better confidentiality terms, or input only non-confidential data (D.C. Rule 1.6, informed consent).", "documents": [ "us-dc-bar-ethics-opinion-388" ], "sources": [ { "label": "D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388 (official)", "url": "https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion 388: where the fee agreement provides for fees based solely on time spent, a lawyer may bill only for time actually spent even if GAI reduces it; absent prior agreement a lawyer may not charge separately for the perceived value of GAI work, but may pass through out-of-pocket GAI costs where the client has agreed to pay expenses.", "documents": [ "us-dc-bar-ethics-opinion-388" ], "sources": [ { "label": "D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388 (official)", "url": "https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388, 'Attorneys' Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Client Matters', published April 2024. Applies D.C. Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.6, 1.16, 3.3, 3.4, 5.1, 5.3 and 8.4. Holds that competence requires understanding the technology; GAI is not a search engine; blind reliance on output is perilous.", "documents": [ "us-dc-bar-ethics-opinion-388" ], "sources": [ { "label": "D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388 (official, full text opened)", "url": "https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-388" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "D.C. Court of Appeals decisions addressing AI-fabricated authority include Pennington v. First Hand Land, LLC, No. 25-CV-0400 (D.C., 8 Jan 2026) and Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., No. 24-CV-1099 (D.C., published order, 3 Sep 2026). The heaviest DC activity is federal (D.D.C.), notably Zhang v. National Public Radio, Inc. (D.D.C., Dec 2025), which is outside the state-court scope.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Pennington v. First Hand Land, LLC (D.C. 2026-01-08)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10770968/pennington-v-first-hand-land-llc/" }, { "label": "Douglas v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (D.C. 2026-09-03)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10965874/douglas-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust-co-published-order/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 388 (April 2024) is one of the fullest US generative-AI ethics opinions; the D.C. Court of Appeals separately amended the Rules of Professional Conduct to codify technology competence and vendor oversight." }, { "name": "Florida", "code": "FL", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "In re Amendments to Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515, No. SC2026-0673 (Fla., 28 May 2026), amended rule 2.515(d)(2) (Representation by Signer, rule retitled Signature and Representations to Court) to address generative AI tools including large language models, tying the signer's representations to AI-produced content. Several circuits have their own AI administrative orders (11th, 15th, 17th, 19th).", "documents": [ "us-fl-rule-2-515-generative-ai-amendment", "us-fl-17th-circuit-ao-2026-03-gen" ], "sources": [ { "label": "In re Amendments to Fla. R. Gen. Prac. and Jud. Admin. 2.515, SC2026-0673 (PDF, official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489374/opinion/Opinion_SC2026-0673.pdf" }, { "label": "Opinion index entry with excerpts", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10865530/in-re-amendments-to-florida-rule-of-general-practice-and-judicial/" }, { "label": "17th Judicial Circuit AO 2026-03-GEN, Use of AI in Court Filings (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.17th.flcourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AO2026-03-GEN-Use-of-AI-in-Court-Filings.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Administrative Order AOSC26-12 of the Chief Justice is reported to address AI in the Florida State Courts System, and the Florida Supreme Court decided In re Amendments to Rule 2.505/2.520 alongside the 2.515 amendment, but flcourts.gov was unreachable from this run so no judicial-use policy text was verified.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AOSC26-12 (PDF, official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2489379/file/AOSC26-12.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No amendment to the Florida Evidence Code or Florida Rules of Evidence on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Ethics Opinion 24-1: a lawyer must obtain the client's informed consent before disclosing confidential information to a third-party generative AI program, and must undertake due diligence on the provider's data-handling, retention and training practices.", "documents": [ "fl-bar-ethics-opinion-24-1" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2024/01/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-24-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Ethics Opinion 24-1: a lawyer may not charge a client for time saved by generative AI, and must inform the client of and obtain agreement to any AI-related costs charged as an expense, consistent with the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar on fees and costs.", "documents": [ "fl-bar-ethics-opinion-24-1" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2024/01/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-24-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (19 Jan 2024), the second US state bar generative-AI opinion: lawyers may use generative AI but must obtain informed client consent before disclosing confidential information to a third-party tool, must verify output, must supervise the tool as they would nonlawyer staff, and may not charge for AI time savings.", "documents": [ "fl-bar-ethics-opinion-24-1" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 24-1 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2024/01/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-24-1.pdf" }, { "label": "Opinion 24-1 landing page (official)", "url": "https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/opinion-24-1/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Florida District Courts of Appeal have repeatedly addressed AI-fabricated authority, including Gouldy v. Chiasson, No. 4D2025-1289 (Fla. 4th DCA, 22 Jul 2026), Kings Roofing NWFL, LLC v. Fusion Works Construction, LLC, No. 6D2025-1251 (Fla. 6th DCA, 22 May 2026) and Capital Standard, LLC v. US Bank N.A., No. 2D2024-1392 (Fla. 2d DCA, 21 Aug 2026).", "documents": [ "us-fl-rule-2-515-generative-ai-amendment" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Gouldy v. Chiasson (Fla. 4th DCA 2026-07-22)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10933819/rose-lannquist-gouldy-v-timothy-michael-chiasson/" }, { "label": "Capital Standard, LLC v. US Bank N.A. (Fla. 2d DCA 2026-08-21)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10954406/capital-standard-llc-tchentsov-v-us-bank-national-association-bear/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Florida moved from the earliest US bar opinion (24-1, January 2024) to a binding statewide signature rule: the Supreme Court amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515(d)(2) on 28 May 2026 to address generative AI. Several circuits also have AI administrative orders." }, { "name": "Georgia", "code": "GA", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No statewide Georgia rule or Supreme Court order requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings as of 2026-09-04. Individual judges have acted, including a Fulton County Superior Court standing order (Judge Schwall's division, July 2025) requiring AI disclosure and certification of citations in briefs and proposed orders, and a Cherokee County Magistrate Court disclosure requirement (July 2025).", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Judicial Council of Georgia Ad Hoc Committee on AI and the Courts, report announcement (official)", "url": "https://www.gasupreme.us/07-03-2025-judicial-council-ai-committee-submits-report/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Judicial Council of Georgia Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, established August 2024 and chaired by Justice Andrew A. Pinson, submitted its report on 3 July 2025 assessing the risks and benefits of generative AI in the courts and recommending changes to court rules and procedures. No implementing Supreme Court order verified as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [ "us-ga-judicial-council-ai-committee-report" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Judicial Council AI Committee submits report (official announcement, 2025-07-03)", "url": "https://www.gasupreme.us/07-03-2025-judicial-council-ai-committee-submits-report/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Georgia evidence rule amendment or court guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Georgia rule or formal opinion on client confidential data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04; Georgia RPC 1.6 applies unmodified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Georgia rule or bar guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04; Georgia RPC 1.5 applies unmodified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No formal State Bar of Georgia ethics opinion on AI. The Bar published a Generative AI Toolkit (informal) and, in coordination with the Supreme Court, runs a Special Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technology (chaired by Darrell Sutton) reviewing how AI affects the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. Georgia has not adopted the ABA technology-competence comment to Rule 1.1.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar of Georgia Special Committee on AI and Emerging Technology (official)", "url": "https://www.gabar.org/bar-communities/view/Artificial-Intelligence-and-Emerging-Technology" }, { "label": "State Bar of Georgia Generative AI Toolkit (PDF)", "url": "https://assets.alm.com/3e/b0/8bbde51d412886f9029653170657/generative-ai-toolkit.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Shahid v. Esaam, No. A25A0196, 376 Ga. App. (Ga. Ct. App., 30 Jun 2025): the Court of Appeals vacated an order that relied on fabricated AI-generated citations submitted by counsel and imposed a 2,500 USD frivolous-litigation penalty. Followed in Slay v. Ross, No. A25A2100 (Ga. Ct. App., 9 Mar 2026), which cites Shahid on generative AI in legal drafting.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Shahid v. Esaam (Ga. Ct. App. 2025-06-30)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10620062/nimat-shahid-v-sufyan-esaam/" }, { "label": "Slay v. Ross (Ga. Ct. App. 2026-03-09)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10805678/everett-b-slay-v-stacie-d-ross/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No formal bar opinion or statewide rule; two parallel committees (Judicial Council Ad Hoc Committee on AI and the Courts, report 3 July 2025; State Bar Special Committee on AI and Technology) are working, while the Court of Appeals has already sanctioned AI-fabricated citations in Shahid v. Esaam." }, { "name": "Hawaii", "code": "HI", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No Hawaii state-court AI disclosure rule in force. The Supreme Court Committee on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts (SCMF-24-0000305), established April 2024 and co-chaired by Justice Vladimir Devens and Judge John Tonaki, filed its final report on 16 Dec 2025 concluding that HRCP Rule 11 is already broad enough, but recommending the Court consider a disclosure rule mirroring D. Haw.…", "documents": [ "us-hi-supreme-court-ai-committee-final-report" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Hawaii State Judiciary (official site)", "url": "https://www.courts.state.hi.us/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Supreme Court committee adopted 'Hawaii State Judiciary Guardrails for the Acceptable Use of AI Tools and Platforms' for judges and judiciary staff, reported in the December 2025 final report. Not binding on private practitioners. Text not located on the judiciary site in this run.", "documents": [ "us-hi-supreme-court-ai-committee-final-report" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Hawaii State Judiciary (official site)", "url": "https://www.courts.state.hi.us/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Hawaii Rules of Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Hawaii AI-specific confidentiality rule or opinion; HRPC 1.6 applies unmodified as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct (official)", "url": "https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/hrpcond_ada.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Hawaii rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No formal Hawaii Disciplinary Board or HSBA ethics opinion on AI; the Disciplinary Board reserves formal written opinions for questions of broad applicability and handles AI questions through informal guidance.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Disciplinary Board, Legal Ethics Advice for Hawaii Lawyers (official)", "url": "https://dbhawaii.org/legal-ethics-advice-for-hawaii-lawyers/" }, { "label": "Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct (official)", "url": "https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/hrpcond_ada.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Keaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence, No. CAAP-24-0000494 (Haw. Ct. App., published order 15 May 2025): the Intermediate Court of Appeals imposed a 100 USD personal sanction under HRCP Rule 11(b)(2) on the signing attorney for a memorandum citing a fabricated decision drafted by a per diem attorney, quoting the principle that a signing attorney must apply their own judgment.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Keaau Development Partnership LLC v. Lawrence (Haw. Ct. App. 2025-05-15) (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/CAAP-24-0000494.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No bar opinion and no state-court AI rule yet, but the Hawaii Supreme Court's Committee on AI and the Courts filed its final report on 16 December 2025 recommending a state-court AI disclosure rule and adopting internal judiciary guardrails." }, { "name": "Idaho", "code": "ID", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Idaho Supreme Court rule or statewide order requires disclosure or certification of AI use in court filings as of 2026-09-04. The OAH guidelines permit an ALJ to require a party disclosure statement in administrative proceedings, with recommended certification language modelled on the Starr order.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Idaho OAH Guidelines for ALJs Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence (PDF, official)", "url": "https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Idaho Office of Administrative Hearings, Guidelines for Administrative Law Judges Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence (24 Sep 2025, Chief ALJ Bryan Nickels). ALJs, contract hearing officers and support staff may not use AI or generative AI at any stage of drafting orders or decisions, may not use it for legal research, and may not use it to summarise evidence…", "documents": [ "us-id-oah-alj-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Idaho OAH AI Guidelines (PDF, official)", "url": "https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Idaho Rules of Evidence amendment or guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "The OAH guidelines prohibit uploading party submissions or evidence to AI systems because inputs including personally identifiable information may be retained for training, aligning with the State of Idaho ITS prohibited use case on unauthorised disclosure of sensitive information. This binds adjudicators, not private lawyers; IRPC 1.6 applies to lawyers unmodified.", "documents": [ "us-id-oah-alj-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Idaho OAH AI Guidelines (PDF, official)", "url": "https://oah.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/OAH-AI-Guidelines.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Idaho rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Idaho State Bar formal ethics opinion on generative AI as of 2026-09-04. Idaho adopted the ABA technology-competence comment to IRPC 1.1 effective July 2014, so ABA Formal Opinion 512 operates as persuasive authority.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct (official)", "url": "https://isb.idaho.gov/bar-counsel/irpc/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Idaho state-court sanction for AI-fabricated citations found as of 2026-09-04 (CourtListener search of the Idaho Supreme Court and Court of Appeals returned no hits). Reported activity is federal (D. Idaho), notably Allen v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Jan 2026), and is outside the state-court scope.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No bar opinion and no judiciary-wide rule, but the Idaho Office of Administrative Hearings issued unusually strict binding AI guidelines for administrative law judges on 24 September 2025, and the Supreme Court began a year-long AI principles effort in September 2025." }, { "name": "Illinois", "code": "IL", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Illinois Supreme Court Policy on Artificial Intelligence, announced 18 Dec 2024 and effective 1 Jan 2025, expressly states that AI use need not be disclosed in a pleading; filers remain accountable and must thoroughly review AI output. Local exceptions exist, notably 22nd Judicial Circuit (McHenry County) Administrative Order 2024-23 and individual Cook County courtroom procedures.", "documents": [ "il-supreme-court-ai-policy", "us-il-22nd-circuit-ao-2024-23" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy (PDF, official)", "url": "https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf" }, { "label": "Illinois Supreme Court announcement (official)", "url": "https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1485/Illinois-Supreme-Court-Announces-Policy-on-Artificial-Intelligence/news-detail/" }, { "label": "22nd Judicial Circuit AO 2024-23 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.22ndcircuitil.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/10/Administrative-Order-2024-23-Artificial-Intelligence-Policy-and-Plan.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy authorises AI use by judges, clerks, research attorneys and court staff provided legal and ethical standards are met, and keeps judges ultimately responsible for their decisions. A judicial reference sheet accompanies it. McHenry County AO 2024-23 adds a circuit-level AI policy and plan.", "documents": [ "il-supreme-court-ai-policy", "us-il-22nd-circuit-ao-2024-23" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy (PDF, official)", "url": "https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Illinois Rules of Evidence amendment or Supreme Court guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy requires that AI applications not compromise confidential communications, personally identifiable information, protected health information or justice and public-safety data. The ARDC guide explains why modern generative AI matters for confidentiality and security and supplies a terms-of-use checklist and client consent form.", "documents": [ "il-supreme-court-ai-policy", "us-il-ardc-implementing-generative-ai-guide" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Illinois Supreme Court AI Policy (PDF, official)", "url": "https://ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net/antilles-resources/resources/e43964ab-8874-4b7a-be4e-63af019cb6f7/Illinois%20Supreme%20Court%20AI%20Policy.pdf" }, { "label": "ARDC AI resources page (official)", "url": "https://www.iardc.org/EducationAndOutreach/ArtificialIntelligence" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No Illinois rule on billing for AI-assisted work. The ARDC guide addresses documenting AI use and client notices under the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; Rule 1.5 applies unmodified. Detailed billing provisions of the guide were not read in this run.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ARDC Implementing Generative AI for Illinois Attorneys (official)", "url": "https://iardc.org/Files/Implementing-AI-Guide/?page=1" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No numbered ISBA formal ethics opinion on AI. The Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, as agent of the Supreme Court, publishes 'Implementing Generative AI for Illinois Attorneys' (2025), a nonbinding companion to the Court's AI Policy explaining how generative AI works, a framework for choosing and documenting tools, and a Practice Resource Kit with sample notices, policies, a client consent…", "documents": [ "us-il-ardc-implementing-generative-ai-guide" ], "sources": [ { "label": "ARDC Artificial Intelligence resources page (official)", "url": "https://www.iardc.org/EducationAndOutreach/ArtificialIntelligence" }, { "label": "ARDC Implementing Generative AI for Illinois Attorneys (official)", "url": "https://iardc.org/Files/Implementing-AI-Guide/?page=1" }, { "label": "ISBA Standing Committee on Artificial Intelligence (official)", "url": "https://www.isba.org/sections/ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Illinois state courts have imposed substantial sanctions. Jordan v. Chicago Housing Authority (Cook County Circuit Court, Dec 2025) is reported to have imposed 59,500 USD under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 against a partner and his firm over AI-fabricated citations in post-trial briefing, notwithstanding the firm's written AI policy.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Scott v. Illinois Human Rights Commission (Ill. App. Ct. 2026-07-28)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10935788/scott-v-illinois-human-rights-commn/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The Illinois Supreme Court's AI Policy (effective 1 January 2025) is the flagship statewide instrument and deliberately rejects a filing-disclosure requirement; the ARDC followed with an implementation guide (2025). Local circuits and Cook County judges have gone further." }, { "name": "Indiana", "code": "IN", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Indiana Supreme Court rule or statewide order requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04. The Court of Appeals has instead admonished counsel case by case under existing appellate rules.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Indiana Supreme Court formed an AI Governance Committee in autumn 2024 and, through the Office of Judicial Administration, released an AI policy toolkit for trial courts in February 2026; attorney-facing guidance remains pending. The Indiana judiciary also ran an AI pilot in expedited mental-health commitment appeals.", "documents": [ "us-in-supreme-court-trial-court-ai-toolkit" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Indiana Court Times, trial-court AI toolkit (Feb 2026, official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://times.courts.in.gov/2026/02/17/ai-toolkit/" }, { "label": "Indiana Court Times, AI Governance Committee (official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://times.courts.in.gov/2025/08/06/guardrails-for-the-future/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Indiana Rules of Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Indiana AI-specific confidentiality rule or opinion found as of 2026-09-04; Indiana RPC 1.6 applies unmodified.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct (official)", "url": "https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/prof-conduct/default.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Indiana rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Indiana State Bar Association or Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct apply unmodified and ABA Formal Opinion 512 operates as persuasive authority.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct (official)", "url": "https://rules.incourts.gov/Content/prof-conduct/default.htm" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "A developed Indiana Court of Appeals line: Williams v. Kirch, No. 25A-SC-00196 (Ind. Ct. App., 18 Aug 2025), the seminal AI-citation admonishment; Cingel v. Ferreri, No. 25A-DC-00500 (Ind. Ct. App., 19 Sep 2025), which recorded that 14 of 23 citations did not exist; Wilcox v. Gingrich, No. 25A-PL-01157 (30 Jan 2026); and Rechlicz v. Pricepoint Builders, LLC, No. 25A-PL-01071 (12…", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Williams v. Kirch (Ind. Ct. App. 2025-08-18)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10655761/kurt-williams-v-karin-kirch/" }, { "label": "Cingel v. Ferreri (Ind. Ct. App. 2025-09-19)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10674373/bethany-cingel-v-gregory-ferreri/" }, { "label": "Rechlicz v. Pricepoint Builders, LLC (Ind. Ct. App. 2026-02-12)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10791093/joseph-s-rechlicz-v-pricepoint-builders-llc/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No bar ethics opinion. The Indiana Supreme Court created an AI Governance Committee in 2024 and released a trial-court AI policy toolkit in February 2026; the Court of Appeals has built a line of AI-citation admonishments starting with Williams v. Kirch (2025)." }, { "name": "Iowa", "code": "IA", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Iowa Supreme Court rule or supervisory order requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04 (Iowa Supreme Court orders index checked).", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Iowa Supreme Court orders index (official)", "url": "https://www.iowacourts.gov/iowa-courts/supreme-court/orders" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Iowa Judicial Branch is reported to have an AI Working Group led by Justice Christopher McDonald, and AI featured in the 2026 Condition of the Judiciary address, but no published judicial AI policy was located in this run.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Iowa Supreme Court, 2026 Condition of the Judiciary (official)", "url": "https://www.iowacourts.gov/iowa-courts/supreme-court/2026-condition-of-the-judiciary" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Iowa Rules of Evidence amendment or guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Iowa AI-specific confidentiality rule or opinion found as of 2026-09-04; Iowa Rule 32:1.6 applies unmodified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Iowa rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Iowa State Bar Association formal ethics opinion on generative AI as of 2026-09-04 (ISBA ethics opinions index checked). The ISBA Board established an AI Committee in December 2025 charged with public AI training; ABA Formal Opinion 512 operates as persuasive authority.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Iowa State Bar Association ethics opinions (official)", "url": "https://www.iowabar.org/ethics" }, { "label": "Iowa Court Rules Chapter 32 (Rules of Professional Conduct)", "url": "https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/ACO/CourtRulesChapter/12-31-2012.32.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "In the Interest of R.A., No. 24-1629 (Iowa Ct. App., 1 Oct 2025) contains a section headed 'Hallucinated by an Artificial Intelligence Program' and is reported to have imposed a 150 USD sanction. In the Interest of W.G., No. 25-1916 (Iowa Ct. App., 1 Apr 2026) has a section headed 'Artificial Intelligence and Hallucinated Case'.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "In the Interest of R.A. (Iowa Ct. App. 2025-10-01)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10685230/in-the-interest-of-ra-minor-child/" }, { "label": "In the Interest of W.G. (Iowa Ct. App. 2026-04-01)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10831376/in-the-interest-of-wg-minor-child/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No ISBA ethics opinion and no Iowa Supreme Court AI rule; an ISBA AI Committee was established in December 2025 and the Judicial Branch has an AI Working Group. The Court of Appeals has begun sanctioning AI-hallucinated citations." }, { "name": "Kansas", "code": "KS", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Shawnee County District Court (3rd Judicial District) Rule 3.125, effective 14 Jun 2024: where any portion of a pleading or paper was drafted using generative AI, the attorney or self-represented litigant must (1) verify that the generated language, materials or content was checked for accuracy using print reporters, traditional legal databases or other reliable means, and (2) disclose that fact…", "documents": [ "us-ks-shawnee-county-dcr-3-125" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Shawnee County DCR 3.125 (official)", "url": "https://www.shawneecourt.org/428/DCR-3125-Pleadings-Using-Generative-Arti" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The Kansas Supreme Court is reported to have created a 21-member Ad Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence in February 2025 by Administrative Order 2025-CM-017; kscourts.gov returned HTTP 403 from this run so the order was not opened and no judicial-use policy was verified.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kansas Supreme Court Administrative Order 2025-CM-017 (PDF, official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://kscourts.gov/KSCourts/media/KsCourts/Orders/2025-CM-017.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Kansas evidence rule amendment or court guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Kansas AI-specific confidentiality rule or opinion found as of 2026-09-04; KRPC 1.6 applies unmodified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Kansas rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Kansas Bar Association formal ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; ABA Formal Opinion 512 operates as persuasive authority.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Kansas state-court sanction for AI-fabricated citations found as of 2026-09-04 (CourtListener search of the Kansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals returned no hits). The heavy Kansas activity is federal (D. Kan. and the Tenth Circuit), including Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc. (D. Kan., Feb 2026, 12,000 USD across four attorneys), which is outside the state-court scope.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No statewide rule or bar opinion, but Shawnee County District Court Rule 3.125 (effective 14 June 2024) is one of the earliest US state trial-court rules requiring first-page AI disclosure plus an accuracy certification, and the Kansas Supreme Court created an Ad Hoc AI Committee in 2025." }, { "name": "Kentucky", "code": "KY", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Kentucky Supreme Court administrative order or court rule requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04 (Supreme Court administrative orders index checked). E-457 tells lawyers to comply with any court-specific AI requirements.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kentucky Supreme Court administrative orders index (official)", "url": "https://www.kycourts.gov/Courts/Supreme-Court/Pages/Administrative-Orders.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts or Supreme Court policy on judicial and court-staff use of generative AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Kentucky Rules of Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "KBA E-457: before inputting confidential client information, a lawyer must understand how the AI tool handles that information and take reasonable measures to protect it under SCR 3.130(1.6).", "documents": [ "ky-bar-ethics-opinion-e-457" ], "sources": [ { "label": "KBA E-457 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA%20E-457.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "KBA E-457: lawyers may not bill clients for time saved by AI as if the work had been done manually, and must consider whether AI costs may be passed through consistent with the reasonable-fee rule (SCR 3.130(1.5)).", "documents": [ "ky-bar-ethics-opinion-e-457" ], "sources": [ { "label": "KBA E-457 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA%20E-457.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion KBA E-457, 'The Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law' (issued 15 Mar 2024), labelled interim while the KBA Task Force on Artificial Intelligence continues. Covers competence, verification, confidentiality, supervision, candour and reasonable fees; notably suggests that failing to use an available AI tool may itself bear on the duty of competence.", "documents": [ "ky-bar-ethics-opinion-e-457" ], "sources": [ { "label": "KBA E-457 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA%20E-457.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Crowder v. Yussman, No. 2024-CA-0930 (Ky. Ct. App., 24 Oct 2025) is the Kentucky appellate decision identified as addressing AI-generated citation problems; Blair v. Sanctuary Bluff Homeowners Association, Inc. (Ky. Ct. App., Mar 2026) is reported as a further instance. Neither opinion's AI passages were read in this run.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Crowder v. Yussman (Ky. Ct. App. 2025-10-24)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10710680/susan-crowder-v-marvin-yussman-md/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "KBA Ethics Opinion E-457 (March 2024) is the operative instrument and one of the most pro-adoption US bar opinions, framing failure to use available AI as a potential competence failure; no Kentucky court rule on AI." }, { "name": "Louisiana", "code": "LA", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Louisiana Supreme Court rule requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in briefs. The Supreme Court's General Counsel letter of 22 Jan 2024 concluded that existing rules are robust and broad enough to cover AI and declined to adopt a new rule; Code of Civil Procedure articles 371 and 863 and Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6…", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Louisiana Supreme Court letter to the LSBA on AI, 22 Jan 2024 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Supreme Court's 22 Jan 2024 letter states that judges remain ultimately responsible for their opinions and decisions, must maintain competence in technology and must protect confidential information, citing Canons 1, 2A, 2B, 3A(1), 3A(4), 3A(7) and 3B(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.", "documents": [ "us-la-supreme-court-letter-ai", "us-la-tech-commission-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Louisiana Supreme Court letter on AI (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf" }, { "label": "LASC Technology Commission Generative AI Guidelines (PDF, official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://lajudicialcollege.org/LASC%20Tech%20Commission%20Generative%20AI%20Guidelines.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "binding", "note": "Louisiana Act No. 250 of the 2025 Regular Session (formerly HB 178), signed 11 Jun 2025 and effective 1 Aug 2025, amends Code of Civil Procedure article 371 to require counsel in civil proceedings to exercise reasonable diligence to verify the authenticity of evidence before offering it, to disclose known falsification including AI generation or alteration of their own exhibits…", "documents": [ "us-la-act-250-2025-ai-evidence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Louisiana Act 250 of 2025, enrolled text (official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=1425558" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The 22 Jan 2024 letter states that Louisiana attorneys remain responsible for protecting confidential client information regardless of AI use (Rule 1.6), and LSBA Opinion 19-RPCC-021 sets the technology due-diligence standard for evaluating third-party tools and vendors. The Technology Commission guidelines are reported to caution against free consumer AI tools in favour of enterprise systems with security protocols.", "documents": [ "us-la-supreme-court-letter-ai", "us-la-tech-commission-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Louisiana Supreme Court letter on AI (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf" }, { "label": "LSBA Public Ethics Opinion 19-RPCC-021 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.lsba.org/documents/Ethics/EthicsOpinionLawyersUseTech02062019.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Supreme Court's 22 Jan 2024 letter reaffirms that Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 and 1.5 apply unchanged to AI-assisted work; no Louisiana AI-specific billing standard was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Louisiana Supreme Court letter on AI (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No LSBA formal ethics opinion specific to AI. The operative bar-facing instruments are the Supreme Court's 22 Jan 2024 letter to the LSBA President (competence, verification, confidentiality, no misrepresentation) and LSBA Public Ethics Opinion 19-RPCC-021 (6 Feb 2019) on lawyers' use of technology and vendor due diligence, which applies directly to AI tool selection.", "documents": [ "us-la-supreme-court-letter-ai", "us-la-tech-commission-generative-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Louisiana Supreme Court letter on AI (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.lsba.org/documents/News/LSBANews/LASCLetterAI.pdf" }, { "label": "LSBA Public Ethics Opinion 19-RPCC-021 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.lsba.org/documents/Ethics/EthicsOpinionLawyersUseTech02062019.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "In re Sanctions Order of Kenney (La. Ct. App. 5th Cir., Oct 2025) is reported to have imposed a 1,368 USD sanction over AI-fabricated authority, and Herigodt v. Louisiana DOTD, No. 2024-CA-0580 (La. Ct. App., 7 Mar 2025) is a verified state appellate decision using AI hallucination language.", "documents": [ "us-la-act-250-2025-ai-evidence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Herigodt v. Louisiana DOTD (La. Ct. App. 2025-03-07)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10612937/sean-herigodt-and-project-nemo-l3c-v-louisiana-department-of/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Unusual profile: no bar ethics opinion, but Louisiana enacted the leading US state statute on AI-falsified evidence (Act 250 of 2025, amending Code of Civil Procedure article 371), and the Supreme Court issued guidance by letter in January 2024 and through its Technology Commission in October 2025." }, { "name": "Maine", "code": "ME", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Maine Supreme Judicial Court administrative order or rule requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04 (SJC administrative orders index checked).", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Maine Supreme Judicial Court administrative orders index (official)", "url": "https://www.courts.maine.gov/adminorders/index.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Maine Judicial Branch policy on judicial or court-staff use of generative AI found as of 2026-09-04. The state's AI Task Force (created by Governor's executive order 20 Dec 2024) issued a 34-recommendation policy report on 31 Oct 2025 addressing state-government AI generally, not the courts.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Maine AI Task Force final report, 31 Oct 2025 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.maine.gov/future/sites/maine.gov.future/files/2025-10/_AI%20Report_DIGITAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Maine Rules of Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Maine AI-specific confidentiality rule or opinion; MRPC 1.6 applies unmodified. Separately, 10 M.R.S. section 1500-DD (effective 23 Sep 2025) requires disclosure when a consumer is interacting with an AI chatbot rather than a human, which reaches law-firm client-facing chat tools.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "10 M.R.S. section 1500-DD (official)", "url": "https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes//10/title10sec1500-DD.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Maine rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar Professional Ethics Commission opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04 (ethics opinions index checked); the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct apply unmodified and ABA Formal Opinion 512 operates as persuasive authority.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Maine Board of Overseers of the Bar ethics opinions (official)", "url": "https://www.mebaroverseers.org/attorney_services/ethics_opinions.html" }, { "label": "Maine Rules of Professional Conduct (official)", "url": "https://www.mebaroverseers.org/regulation/maine_conduct_rules.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Maine state-court sanction for AI-fabricated citations found as of 2026-09-04 (CourtListener search of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court returned no hits).", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The quietest state in this batch for legal-practice AI: no bar ethics opinion, no court rule and no reported state-court sanction; the only AI law touching firms is a consumer chatbot disclosure statute." }, { "name": "Maryland", "code": "MD", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "proposed", "note": "No Maryland rule in force requires disclosure or certification of AI use in filings. A proposed amendment to Maryland Rule 1-311 (signature of pleadings) would explicitly codify a duty to verify cited authority, an anti-hallucination rule; not adopted as of 2026-09-04 and the Rules Committee text was not opened in this run.", "documents": [ "us-md-mezu-v-mezu" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Mezu v. Mezu, 267 Md. App. (PDF, official) discussing the problem", "url": "https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "A Maryland Judiciary AI policy is reported to exist but mdcourts.gov policy pages were not located in this run. Maryland separately established an AI Evidence Clinic Pilot Program effective January 2026, which was not verified here.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Maryland is reported to have created an AI Evidence Clinic Pilot Program effective January 2026 to help courts handle AI-generated evidence, but no rule text or administrative order was located in this run.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Likely addressed in the MSBA Task Force advisory (May 2025), but the advisory text was not accessible in this run; MARPC 19-301.6 applies unmodified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Likely addressed in the MSBA Task Force advisory (May 2025), but the advisory text was not accessible in this run; no Maryland rule on billing for AI-assisted work found.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Maryland State Bar Association AI and Legal Technology Task Force, 'An Overview of Ethical Considerations for Attorney Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technologies' (May 2025). Not a numbered ethics opinion; distributed through the MSBA store, so the full text was not opened in this run. No Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission or Court of Appeals ethics opinion on AI.", "documents": [ "us-md-msba-ai-task-force-advisory" ], "sources": [ { "label": "MSBA AI and Legal Technology Task Force advisory (official listing)", "url": "https://www.msba.org/site/site/rise/Store/StoreLayouts/Item-Detail.aspx?iProductCode=E-6030-25" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Mezu v. Mezu, No. 361, Sept. Term 2025 (Appellate Court of Maryland, reported opinion, 29 Oct 2025): the court reported the case specifically to address AI-generated citations, found the brief replete with citations to multiple fictitious cases, misquoted passages and cases not supporting the propositions cited, and referred the attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission.", "documents": [ "us-md-mezu-v-mezu" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Mezu v. Mezu (Appellate Court of Maryland, PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2025/0361s25.pdf" }, { "label": "Mezu v. Mezu index entry", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10714052/mezu-v-mezu/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Maryland's key instrument is judicial: Mezu v. Mezu (Appellate Court of Maryland, reported, Nov 2025) referred an attorney to the Attorney Grievance Commission over AI-fabricated citations, and a proposed amendment to Maryland Rule 1-311 would codify a duty to verify cited authority." }, { "name": "Massachusetts", "code": "MA", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No statewide attorney-facing AI rule applies to Massachusetts state-court filings (Superior Court, Appeals Court or SJC) as of 2026-09-04. Mass. R. Civ. P. 11 supplies the verification duty, as applied in Smith v. Farwell.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "SJC Interim Guidelines for Use of Generative AI, announced by Chief Justice Kimberly Budd in her December 2025 State of the Judiciary address. They apply to court personnel only (judges, clerks, registers, recorders, employees, law clerks, interns and contractors), permit generative AI for administrative tasks using only public information, and prohibit tools that retain or train on entered information.", "documents": [ "us-ma-sjc-interim-genai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SJC Interim Guidelines for Use of Generative AI (official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://www.mass.gov/guidance/interim-guidelines-for-use-of-generative-ai" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Massachusetts Guide to Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No Massachusetts AI-specific confidentiality rule; Mass. RPC 1.6 applies unmodified, and the BBO article addresses it. Separately, the Attorney General's AI Advisory of 16 Apr 2024 applies Chapter 93A, Chapter 93H and 201 CMR 17.00 data-security and breach-notification obligations to developers, suppliers and users of AI, a category that includes law firms handling client personal information through AI tools.", "documents": [ "us-ma-sjc-interim-genai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Massachusetts Attorney General AI Advisory, 16 Apr 2024 (official)", "url": "https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-campbell-issues-advisory-providing-guidance-on-how-state-consumer-protection-and-other-laws-apply-to-artificial-intelligence" }, { "label": "BBO, The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence (PDF, official)", "url": "https://bbopublic.massbbo.org/web/f/The_Wild_West_of_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "case-law", "note": "No rule or bar opinion on billing for AI-assisted work. The operative signal is judicial: in Dastou v. Holmes the Superior Court prohibited counsel from billing the client for time spent preparing the defective AI-assisted materials.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Dastou v. Holmes (Mass. Super. Ct. 2025-07-16)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10642455/robert-dastou-v-kathryn-holmes/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No formal numbered ethics opinion from the Massachusetts Bar Association or the Board of Bar Overseers. Two BBO Office of Bar Counsel educational articles are the closest instruments: 'The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence' (Afton Pavletic, 2024), walking through Mass. RPC 1.1, 1.6, 5.1 and 5.3 in the AI context, and a 2025 follow-up by Assistant Bar Counsel Heather L.…", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "BBO Office of Bar Counsel, The Wild West of Artificial Intelligence (PDF, official)", "url": "https://bbopublic.massbbo.org/web/f/The_Wild_West_of_Artificial_Intelligence.pdf" }, { "label": "BBO articles on ethics index (official)", "url": "https://www.massbbo.org/s/articles-on-ethics" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Smith v. Farwell (Norfolk Super. Ct., 12 Feb 2024, Davis J.): 2,000 USD sanction on plaintiff's counsel for three memoranda containing at least four wholly fictitious AI-generated citations; the court held that all attorneys must know whether AI is used in preparing court papers and must verify accuracy, and warned that a defence based on ignorance will become less credible.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Dastou v. Holmes (Mass. Super. Ct. 2025)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10642455/robert-dastou-v-kathryn-holmes/" }, { "label": "Boston Globe report on Smith v. Farwell", "url": "https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/03/07/metro/ai-generated-court-filing-stoughton/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No formal ethics opinion: the SJC Standing Advisory Committee concluded in late 2025 that the existing Rules of Professional Conduct give ample guidance. The state's contribution is judicial, with Smith v. Farwell (2024) among the earliest US state-court AI sanctions." }, { "name": "Michigan", "code": "MI", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Michigan Court Rule requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04. The State Bar AI FAQs state that submitting AI-hallucinated citations to a court violates MRPC 3.3.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar of Michigan AI FAQs (official, not opened in this run; michbar.org returned HTTP 403)", "url": "https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "State Bar of Michigan Standing Committee on Judicial Ethics, Opinion JI-155 (approved 27 Oct 2023, published 8 Nov 2023): technology competence is an ethical responsibility; judges must assess potential algorithmic bias before relying on AI tools, document their reasoning when AI is used on the record, distinguish AI informing a decision from AI deciding a matter, and recognise due-process obligations…", "documents": [ "us-mi-judicial-ethics-opinion-ji-155" ], "sources": [ { "label": "SBM Judicial Ethics Opinion JI-155 (official, not opened in this run)", "url": "https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Michigan Rules of Evidence amendment or court guidance on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "AI FAQs: under MRPC 1.6(c)(1) a lawyer must obtain client consent before inputting protected client information into any AI tool, and must evaluate the provider's security measures by reference to Ethics Opinion RI-381 (vendor due diligence, cybersecurity policies, periodic reassessment, timely client notification of material breaches).", "documents": [ "us-mi-state-bar-ai-faqs" ], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar of Michigan AI FAQs (official)", "url": "https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs" }, { "label": "SBM Ethics Opinion RI-381 (official)", "url": "https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-381" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "AI FAQs (fees section updated 11 Feb 2025): where AI shortens a task, a lawyer may bill only the actual time worked (a motion drafted in 15 minutes is billed at 15 minutes); AI subscription costs are firm overhead and may not be passed on absent advance agreement, though per-use transactional AI costs may be billed as actual out-of-pocket expenses…", "documents": [ "us-mi-state-bar-ai-faqs" ], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar of Michigan AI FAQs (official)", "url": "https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "State Bar of Michigan Ethics and Practice Management Resource Center, AI FAQs for Attorneys (published 18 Nov 2024; fees section updated 11 Feb 2025), expressly neither legal advice nor an ethics opinion.", "documents": [ "us-mi-state-bar-ai-faqs", "us-mi-age-of-ai-report" ], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar of Michigan AI FAQs (official)", "url": "https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/AIFAQs" }, { "label": "SBM Ethics Opinion RI-381 (official)", "url": "https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/RI-381" }, { "label": "SBM, Transforming the Legal Profession in the Age of AI (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.michbar.org/Portals/0/publications/pdfs/Age_of_AI_Report_June25.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Groulx v. CSL Limited (Mich. Ct. App., Dec 2025) is the Michigan state appellate matter identified as addressing AI-fabricated authority; it was not opened in this run. The developed Michigan record is federal, notably Seither and Cherry Quad Cities, Inc. v. Oakland Automation, LLC (E.D. Mich., Jul 2025, 1,485 USD Rule 11 sanction), which is outside the state-court scope.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No formal RI opinion for practising lawyers, but unusually detailed non-binding AI FAQs from the State Bar (Nov 2024, fees section updated Feb 2025), a judicial ethics opinion (JI-155, 2023) and an AI Workgroup report (June 2025)." }, { "name": "Minnesota", "code": "MN", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Minnesota Supreme Court rule or statewide order requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04. The District of Minnesota published an informational Generative AI FAQ in October 2025, which is federal and non-binding.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "D. Minn. Generative AI FAQ (PDF, official, federal)", "url": "https://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/sites/mnd/files/GenAI_FAQ.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Minnesota Judicial Branch policy on judicial or court-staff use of generative AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Minnesota Rules of Evidence amendment on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04. The leading Minnesota AI-evidence episode is federal: Kohls v. Ellison (D. Minn., Jan 2025), where the court struck an expert declaration containing AI-hallucinated citations.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The OLPR Director's guidance is reported to treat informed-consent documentation for client data used with AI tools as an affirmative obligation under Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6 rather than a best practice; the article text was not opened in this run.", "documents": [ "us-mn-msba-ai-working-group-report", "us-mn-olpr-genai-ethics-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (official)", "url": "https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/rule/prcond-toh/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Billing for AI-assisted work may be addressed in the OLPR Director's September 2024 article, but the article text was not opened in this run; Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 applies unmodified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "No formal numbered opinion from the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board. The operative guidance is an article by the Director of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility on ethics guidance for generative AI use, published in Bench and Bar of Minnesota (September 2024), together with the MSBA Artificial Intelligence Working Group Final Report and Recommendations (adopted June/July 2024), which among other…", "documents": [ "us-mn-msba-ai-working-group-report", "us-mn-olpr-genai-ethics-guidance" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Bench and Bar of Minnesota, September 2024 (MSBA official publication)", "url": "https://www.mnbars.org/?pg=BenchBarofMinnesota&pubAction=viewIssue&pubIssueID=47719&pubIssueItemID=294962" }, { "label": "MSBA AI Working Group Report (official announcement)", "url": "https://mnbars.org/?pg=MSBAAnnouncements&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=112704" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Nuvola, LLC v. Wright (Minn. Dist. Ct., Hennepin County, Nov 2025) is reported to have imposed a 1,000 USD sanction for AI-hallucinated citations, and Delano Crossing 2016, LLC v. County of Wright (Minn. Tax Ct., May 2025) is reported as an earlier instance; neither order was opened in this run and CourtListener holds no Minnesota appellate AI hallucination decisions.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No numbered ethics opinion. The operative instruments are informal OLPR Director guidance (September 2024) and an MSBA AI Working Group report (2024) proposing an AI regulatory sandbox for access-to-justice tools." }, { "name": "Mississippi", "code": "MS", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Mississippi Supreme Court rule or statewide order requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04. Opinion 267 leaves affirmative disclosure to tribunals to individual court orders.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion 267 landing page (official)", "url": "https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Mississippi Supreme Court or Administrative Office of Courts policy on judicial and court-staff use of generative AI found as of 2026-09-04. The prominent Mississippi episode is federal: a S.D. Miss. law clerk used Perplexity AI to draft a defective order in July 2025, addressed in Judge Wingate's 21 Oct 2025 letter to Senator Grassley.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Judge Wingate letter to Senator Grassley on judiciary use of AI, 21 Oct 2025 (PDF, official)", "url": "https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/wingate_to_grassley_re_judiciary_use_of_ai.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Mississippi Rules of Evidence amendment or guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion 267 (MRPC 1.6): lawyers must take reasonable measures and precautions to protect confidential information when using any generative AI tool, should avoid inputting identifiable client information where possible, and must obtain informed client consent where concern about inadvertent disclosure remains. Providing confidential client information to a third-party AI provider is a mandatory disclosure trigger under MRPC 1.4.", "documents": [ "us-ms-bar-ethics-opinion-267" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion 267 (official)", "url": "https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion 267 (MRPC 1.5): billing must not duplicate charges or inflate hours when generative AI is used; if the cost of the AI tool is passed to the client, informed consent must be obtained and the billing arrangement memorialised in writing before billing begins. Charging the AI cost to the client is one of the three mandatory client-disclosure triggers.", "documents": [ "us-ms-bar-ethics-opinion-267" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion 267 (official)", "url": "https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion No. 267 (14 Nov 2024), Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. Requires competence in the tools used (MRPC 1.1), an affirmative risk-calibrated duty to verify AI work product (MRPC 1.1 and 3.3), reasonable confidentiality measures (MRPC 1.6), supervision and staff training (MRPC 5.1 and 5.3), and names three triggers for mandatory client disclosure and informed consent…", "documents": [ "us-ms-bar-ethics-opinion-267" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion 267 (official landing page)", "url": "https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/267/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Lofton v. Grove Farms (Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Miss., Sep 2025) is reported to have imposed a 7,472 USD sanction, and Brown v. State (Miss. Ct. App., Mar 2026) is listed as a state appellate AI matter; neither was opened in this run and a CourtListener full-text search of the Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals returned no…", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Mississippi Bar Ethics Opinion No. 267 (14 November 2024) is one of the more prescriptive US bar opinions, naming three specific triggers for mandatory client disclosure and informed consent; no state court rule." }, { "name": "Missouri", "code": "MO", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No statewide Missouri Supreme Court rule requires disclosure of AI use in filings as of 2026-09-04, but several circuits have local rules, notably Missouri 7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County) Local Rule 3.3.1, Disclosure of Artificial Intelligence Use (July 2024). Informal Opinion 2024-11 notes that Rule 4-3.4(c) prohibits knowingly disobeying an obligation under a tribunal's rules, which reaches court AI orders.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 (official)", "url": "https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/" }, { "label": "7th Judicial Circuit (Clay County) local court rules (official, not opened in this run)", "url": "http://www.circuit7.net/circuitcourt/Local-Court-Rules.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Missouri Supreme Court or Office of State Courts Administrator policy on judicial and court-staff use of generative AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Missouri evidence rule amendment or court guidance on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Informal Opinion 2024-11, point two: before use, a lawyer must assess the platform's terms and conditions, the security of information input, how that information is used by the platform and what data sources it draws on, and must make reasonable efforts under Rule 4-1.6(c) and Comments [15] and [16] to prevent inadvertent or unauthorised disclosure, including by supervised persons; state…", "documents": [ "us-mo-informal-opinion-2024-11" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 (official)", "url": "https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Informal Opinion 2024-11, point seven: a lawyer and firm should consider how the use of generative AI affects the reasonableness of fees under Rule 4-1.5(a). The opinion sets no separate AI billing standard.", "documents": [ "us-mo-informal-opinion-2024-11" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 (official)", "url": "https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 (adopted 25 Apr 2024), issued by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30(c) and published as determined by the Advisory Committee.", "documents": [ "us-mo-informal-opinion-2024-11" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 (official, full text opened)", "url": "https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2024-11/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Kruse v. Karlen, No. ED111172 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D., 13 Feb 2024): appeal dismissed for submission of fictitious cases generated by AI, with a 10,000 USD damages award for a frivolous appeal, one of the earliest US state appellate AI sanctions.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Kruse v. Karlen (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2024-02-13)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10630553/molly-kruse-v-jonathan-r-karlen/" }, { "label": "Stevens v. BJC Health System (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2025-03-18)", "url": "https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10630372/angela-d-stevens-v-bjc-health-system-and-division-of-employment-security/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Missouri pairs an early ethics opinion (Informal Opinion 2024-11, 25 April 2024) with the most-cited early US state appellate AI sanction, Kruse v. Karlen (Mo. Ct. App. E.D., 13 February 2024, 10,000 USD), plus circuit-level AI disclosure rules." }, { "name": "Montana", "code": "MT", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Montana Fourth Judicial District Court (Missoula and Mineral Counties) Rules of Practice Rule 3.G (rev. 2025-10-31) requires any party using generative AI in preparing a filed document to disclose the use, the specific tool, how it was used, and to certify the accuracy of AI-drafted portions including citations; absence of the certification is treated as certifying no AI use.", "documents": [ "us-mt-4th-district-rule-3g-generative-ai", "us-mt-13th-district-local-rule-35-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "MT 4th Judicial District Rules of Practice (official PDF, rev. 31 Oct 2025)", "url": "https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf" }, { "label": "Yellowstone County local rules (official PDF, not reachable in this run)", "url": "https://www.yellowstonecountymt.gov/clerk_court/LocalRules.pdf" }, { "label": "Montana LawHelp, AI and Legal Resources (state legal-aid portal)", "url": "https://www.montanalawhelp.org/resource/ai-and-legal-resources" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported policy on judges' or court staff's own use of AI found as of 2026-09-04; the Montana Supreme Court has not published an AI policy.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Montana rule of evidence amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Montana-specific guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 2026-09-04; ABA Formal Opinion 512 applies as persuasive authority.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "ABA Formal Opinion 512", "url": "https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Montana authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No State Bar of Montana ethics opinion or formal guidance on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; Montana is absent from the November 2025 national compilation of AI ethics opinions.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Montana state-court AI sanctions could be checked; Rule 3.G expressly contemplates Rule 11 sanctions including dismissal of the offending filing without prejudice.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "MT 4th Judicial District Rules of Practice", "url": "https://courts.mt.gov/external/dcourt/dc_rules/4th.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No statewide rule or bar opinion; two trial-court districts (4th and 13th Judicial Districts) impose AI disclosure-and-certification requirements on all filers." }, { "name": "Nebraska", "code": "NE", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nebraska Supreme Court rule, administrative order or reported district-court standing order requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nebraska judiciary AI policy or judicial-ethics opinion on AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nebraska rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nebraska-specific guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nebraska authority on AI and fee reasonableness found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nebraska State Bar Association / Nebraska Supreme Court Counsel for Discipline ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; Nebraska is absent from the November 2025 national compilation.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "Nebraska Supreme Court suspended Omaha attorney Greg Lake (order reported 16 Apr 2026) after a divorce appeal brief contained 57 defective citations out of 63, including four wholly fabricated cases; the lawyer first denied using AI. Reported as the first indefinite US suspension tied to AI hallucinations. Official opinion citation not verified in this run.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "WOWT (Omaha) report, 9 Apr 2026", "url": "https://www.wowt.com/2026/04/09/nebraska-attorney-faces-suspension-over-alleged-ai-use-state-supreme-court-brief/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No court rule or bar ethics opinion on AI, but Nebraska produced what is reported to be the first indefinite US attorney suspension for AI-fabricated citations (April 2026)." }, { "name": "Nevada", "code": "NV", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nevada Supreme Court rule or ADKT requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Nevada Administrative Office of the Courts publishes an 'Artificial Intelligence Guide' under Resources for Courts and Judicial Officers, described as covering ethical considerations, limitations and best practices for responsible AI use in Nevada courts. The page returned HTTP 403 to automated fetches, so its text is unverified; date of adoption not established.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Nevada AOC, Artificial Intelligence Guide (official, not openable in this run)", "url": "https://nvcourts.gov/aoc/resources_for_courts_and_judicial_officers/artificial_intelligence_guide" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nevada rule change or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nevada-specific guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Nevada authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No State Bar of Nevada formal ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; the Bar has run an AI work group and CLE content but published no opinion.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar of Nevada, notice of rule changes (ADKT index)", "url": "https://nvbar.org/notice-of-rule-changes/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Nevada state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No court rule or bar ethics opinion; the Administrative Office of the Courts publishes an internal AI Guide for courts and judicial officers." }, { "name": "New Hampshire", "code": "NH", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No New Hampshire Supreme Court or superior court rule, administrative order or standing order requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No New Hampshire judiciary AI policy or judicial-ethics guidance found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No New Hampshire rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "NHBA Ethics Corner article (15 May 2024): NH RPC 1.6 requires lawyers to understand how an AI tool handles data and to review vendor privacy policies before entering client information; the committee advises against using general-purpose generative AI to draft pleadings because doing so will usually disclose confidential client information to the tool.", "documents": [ "us-nh-bar-ethics-corner-ai-in-practice" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NHBA, Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice", "url": "https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "The NHBA articles do not address fees or billing; no other New Hampshire authority found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "NHBA, Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice", "url": "https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "New Hampshire Bar Association Ethics Committee 'Ethics Corner' articles — 'Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice' (15 May 2024) and 'Ethics of Drafting Documents with Artificial Intelligence' — apply NH RPC 1.1 (technology competence), 1.6 (confidentiality) and 3.3. These are practical ethics articles, not formal opinions, and are not binding.", "documents": [ "us-nh-bar-ethics-corner-ai-in-practice" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NHBA, Ethics of Using Artificial Intelligence in Practice", "url": "https://www.nhbar.org/using-artificial-intelligence-in-practice/" }, { "label": "NHBA, Ethics of Drafting Documents with Artificial Intelligence", "url": "https://www.nhbar.org/drafting-documents-with-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before New Hampshire state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No court rule; the NH Bar Association Ethics Committee has published practical ethics articles (2024) rather than a formal opinion." }, { "name": "New Jersey", "code": "NJ", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Supreme Court of New Jersey, Preliminary Guidelines on New Jersey Lawyers' Use of Artificial Intelligence (Notice to the Bar, 24 Jan 2024): no general obligation to disclose AI use to courts or clients absent a specific rule, but lawyers must verify AI output and remain fully accountable under RPC 3.3.", "documents": [ "nj-supreme-court-preliminary-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NJ Courts Notice to the Bar (official)", "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/notice-legal-practice-preliminary-guidelines-use-of-artificial-intelligence-new-jersey" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The 2024 preliminary guidelines address lawyers only. No separate New Jersey judiciary AI policy for judges and court staff was located before the search budget was exhausted; re-check njcourts.gov notices and the Supreme Court Committee on Artificial Intelligence.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No New Jersey rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Preliminary Guidelines (24 Jan 2024): confidential client information must be protected when using AI tools; RPC 1.6 applies in full and supervisory lawyers must ensure subordinate use complies with the RPCs.", "documents": [ "nj-supreme-court-preliminary-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NJ Courts Notice to the Bar (official)", "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/notice-legal-practice-preliminary-guidelines-use-of-artificial-intelligence-new-jersey" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The preliminary guidelines touch on RPC 1.5 but the notice text could not be opened in this run (njcourts.gov returned HTTP 403); treat the fee position as unverified.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Supreme Court's own preliminary guidelines (24 Jan 2024) function as the state's bar guidance. The New Jersey State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and the Law published a report with requests, recommendations and findings (May 2024), which is advocacy rather than regulation.", "documents": [ "nj-supreme-court-preliminary-ai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NJ Courts Notice to the Bar (official)", "url": "https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/notice-legal-practice-preliminary-guidelines-use-of-artificial-intelligence-new-jersey" }, { "label": "NJSBA AI Task Force Report (May 2024)", "url": "https://njsba.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NJSBA-TASK-FORCE-ON-AI-AND-THE-LAW-REPORT-final.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before New Jersey state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Early mover: the Supreme Court issued preliminary AI guidelines for lawyers in January 2024; no disclosure mandate and no separate judicial-use policy located." }, { "name": "New Mexico", "code": "NM", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 (24 Sep 2024) does not itself impose disclosure, but tells lawyers to check jurisdiction-specific rules, local rules and standing orders 'including whether it is allowed and what level of disclosure is required', and to independently verify the accuracy and sufficiency of all AI-generated material before filing (Rules 16-303, 16-804(C)).", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar of New Mexico Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No New Mexico judiciary AI policy or judicial-ethics advisory opinion on AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No New Mexico rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion 2024-004, Part I: lawyers must not input confidential information (or information that could lead to its discovery) into generative AI tools lacking adequate confidentiality and security protections, must take reasonable measures against unauthorised access under Rule 16-106, and should obtain informed client consent before inputting confidential information. Rule 16-109 conflicts issues arise from prior-client data retained by a tool.", "documents": [ "us-nm-ethics-advisory-opinion-2024-004" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion 2024-004 (24 Sep 2024), Part III: under Rule 16-105 NMRA a lawyer may bill only for the time actually spent on a task when generative AI reduces the work, and must communicate the basis of fees and expenses; efficiency gains must not produce an unreasonable fee.", "documents": [ "us-nm-ethics-advisory-opinion-2024-004" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "State Bar of New Mexico Ethics Advisory Committee, Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004, 'Using Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law' (24 Sep 2024): lawyers may use generative AI; implicates Rules 16-101, 16-103, 16-104, 16-105, 16-106, 16-109, 16-303, 16-501, 16-503 and 16-804(C) NMRA. Advisory only, not binding on the disciplinary board or tribunals.", "documents": [ "us-nm-ethics-advisory-opinion-2024-004" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Formal Ethics Advisory Opinion 2024-004 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.sbnm.org/Portals/NMBAR/GenAI%20Formal%20Opinion%20-%20Sept_2024_FINAL.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before New Mexico state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "State Bar formal ethics opinion 2024-004 permits generative AI use with competence, verification, confidentiality and fee constraints; no state court AI rule found." }, { "name": "New York", "code": "NY", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "22 NYCRR Part 161 ('Use of Artificial Intelligence Technology'), added to the Rules of the Chief Administrator and effective 2026-06-01, applies to all UCS courts in civil and criminal cases.", "documents": [ "us-ny-22-nycrr-part-161-artificial-intelligence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "22 NYCRR Part 161 (official rule page)", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/rules/part-161-use-artificial-intelligence-technology" }, { "label": "Administrative Order of the Chief Administrative Judge (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/rules/comments/pdf/AdministrativeOrder-CAJ-75-2026-ArttificialIntelligence-032526r.pdf" }, { "label": "NYSBA notice, effective 1 June 2026", "url": "https://nysba.org/effective-june-1-2026-the-new-york-state-unified-court-system-has-adopted-a-new-rule-regarding-the-use-of-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "NY Unified Court System Interim Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (effective 2025-10-10) binds judges and non-judicial employees: only court-approved AI tools, mandatory training, no confidential/sealed/non-public information in public tools, and human review and verification of all output. Supplemented by the UCS Advisory Committee on AI and the Courts 2025 annual report (Dec 2025) on judicial ethics and AI.", "documents": [ "ny-ucs-interim-ai-policy", "ny-ucs-ai-advisory-committee-2025-report" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NY UCS Interim AI Policy (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdf" }, { "label": "UCS AI Advisory Committee 2025 Annual Report (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/publications/pdfs/AI%20Annual%20Report%202025.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No New York rule of evidence amendment or reported appellate decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "binding", "note": "For court personnel, the UCS Interim AI Policy (2025-10-10) prohibits entering confidential, sealed or personal information into public AI tools and limits use to approved tools.", "documents": [ "ny-ucs-interim-ai-policy", "nyc-bar-formal-opinion-2024-5", "us-nyc-bar-formal-opinion-2025-6" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NY UCS Interim AI Policy (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/a.i.-policy.pdf" }, { "label": "NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024-5", "url": "https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2024-5-generative-artificial-intelligence/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Neither Part 161 nor the UCS policy addresses fees; NYC Bar 2024-5 focuses on competence, verification, confidentiality and supervision. Whether either NYC Bar opinion addresses billing for AI-assisted work was not verified before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "New York City Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics Formal Opinion 2024-5, 'Generative Artificial Intelligence' (7 Aug 2024) — competence, verification, confidentiality, supervision. Formal Opinion 2025-6, 'Ethical Issues Affecting Use of AI to Record, Transcribe, and Summarize Conversations with Clients' (22 Dec 2025) — client notice and consent before AI recording, independent review of AI transcripts and summaries, retainer provisions…", "documents": [ "nyc-bar-formal-opinion-2024-5", "us-nyc-bar-formal-opinion-2025-6" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2024-5", "url": "https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2024-5-generative-artificial-intelligence/" }, { "label": "NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6", "url": "https://www.nycbar.org/reports/formal-opinion-2025-6/" }, { "label": "NYSBA Task Force on AI report (8 Apr 2024)", "url": "https://nysba.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2024-April-Report-and-Recommendations-of-the-Task-Force-on-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Part 161 expressly contemplates sanction or other remedial action for filings that were not independently checked, but no specific New York state-court AI-hallucination sanctions decision was verified before the search budget was exhausted. (Mata v. Avianca, the best-known New York case, is a federal SDNY decision and is out of scope here.)", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The most fully built-out US state framework: a binding statewide court rule on AI-prepared filings (22 NYCRR Part 161, effective 1 June 2026), an internal court-system AI policy for judges and staff, and two NYC Bar formal opinions." }, { "name": "North Carolina", "code": "NC", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 (adopted 2024-11-01), Inquiry #4: signing a pleading prepared with AI carries the same obligations as any other pleading under Rule 3.1 and N.C. R. Civ. P. 11 — the lawyer is professionally responsible for the tool's product. No statewide court rule requiring disclosure.", "documents": [ "nc-state-bar-2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NC State Bar 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1", "url": "https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/" }, { "label": "Duke RAILS, Resources: AI Orders", "url": "https://rails.legal/resources/resource-ai-orders/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No North Carolina judiciary AI policy or judicial-ethics opinion on AI was located before the search budget was exhausted; re-check nccourts.gov and the NC Judicial Standards Commission.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No North Carolina rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "2024 FEO 1, Inquiry #2: client information may be provided to a third-party AI tool only if the tool is sufficiently secure; lawyers should generally avoid inputting client-specific information into publicly available AI resources because such programs commonly retain and train on user data. Inquiry #5: informed consent is required in advance before delegating substantive tasks to AI.", "documents": [ "nc-state-bar-2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NC State Bar 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1", "url": "https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "2024 FEO 1, Inquiry #6: a lawyer may not bill a client on the basis of pre-AI time estimates when AI reduced the hours actually worked; billing must be accurate, and flat fees remain permissible if not excessive and the client consents.", "documents": [ "nc-state-bar-2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NC State Bar 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1", "url": "https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "North Carolina State Bar 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1, 'Use of Artificial Intelligence in a Law Practice' (adopted 2024-11-01): lawyers may use AI subject to Rule 1.1 competence, Rule 1.6(c) confidentiality, Rule 5.3 supervision of nonlawyer resources, and verification of output.", "documents": [ "nc-state-bar-2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1" ], "sources": [ { "label": "NC State Bar 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1", "url": "https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/adopted-opinions/2024-formal-ethics-opinion-1/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before North Carolina state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "State Bar 2024 Formal Ethics Opinion 1 is the governing guidance; no statewide court rule, but at least one county-level administrative order on AI filings." }, { "name": "North Dakota", "code": "ND", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No North Dakota Supreme Court rule, administrative order or standing order requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Secondary trackers list North Dakota among jurisdictions with 'official guidance' on AI, but no document could be located or opened before the search budget was exhausted; re-check ndcourts.gov.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No North Dakota rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No North Dakota-specific guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No North Dakota authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No State Bar Association of North Dakota ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; North Dakota is absent from the November 2025 national compilation of AI ethics opinions.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before North Dakota state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No verified AI court rule or bar ethics opinion; secondary trackers refer to unspecified North Dakota 'official guidance' that could not be located." }, { "name": "Ohio", "code": "OH", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Ohio Ethics Guide, 'Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers' (Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, 2026-06-02): no statewide disclosure duty, but a lawyer 'must always comply with a court's local rules or standing orders relating to both the use and disclosure of AI tools' (Prof.Cond.R. 3.4), and the Guide notes an Ohio common pleas judge who requires counsel to certify…", "documents": [ "us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers (official PDF)", "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf" }, { "label": "Supreme Court of Ohio, Artificial Intelligence Resource Library", "url": "https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/courts/services-to-courts/artificial-intelligence-resource-library/" }, { "label": "Court News Ohio, Ethics Guidance Delivered to Ohio Lawyers (30 Jun 2026)", "url": "https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/happening/2026/AIEthics_063026.asp" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Ohio Ethics Guide (2026-06-02), Judges section: judicial competence under Jud.Cond.R. 2.5(A) extends to understanding AI; Jud.Cond.R. 2.7 means 'a judge should never use AI to decide the ultimate conclusion or decision in a case'; a judge should avoid using AI to produce the first draft of a decision or order; independent judicial decision-making cannot be delegated (Jud.Cond.R. 1.2).", "documents": [ "us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ohio Ethics Guide (official PDF)", "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "The Ethics Guide notes that AI-competent judges are better placed to scrutinise 'offered evidence for improper AI use', but no Ohio evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence was found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Ohio Ethics Guide (official PDF)", "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Ohio Ethics Guide (2026-06-02): entering client-related information — or the lawyer's own work product — into AI platforms, especially free services, risks breaching Prof.Cond.R. 1.6; lawyers must check whether the tool shares information with third parties.", "documents": [ "us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ohio Ethics Guide (official PDF)", "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Ohio Ethics Guide (2026-06-02), Fees section: lawyers may bill only for time actually spent, not the time a task would have taken without AI (worked example: 15–20 hours reduced to 8 means billing 8); flat or alternative fees must still be reasonable under Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(a) and may become unreasonable if AI substantially reduces effort; the cost of a standard AI…", "documents": [ "us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ohio Ethics Guide (official PDF)", "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Ohio Ethics Guide: Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers, Ohio Board of Professional Conduct, issued 2026-06-02. Expressly nonbinding Board-staff guidance under the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct and Code of Judicial Conduct; covers competence, confidentiality, client communication, independent professional judgment, fees, candor, supervision and judicial use.", "documents": [ "us-oh-ethics-guide-artificial-intelligence" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Ohio Ethics Guide (official PDF)", "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "case-law", "note": "State v. Coleman, 2026-Ohio-965: a lawyer was sanctioned $2,000 and referred to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for submitting court filings containing hallucinated facts and quotations not found in the record. Cited in the Board of Professional Conduct's own Ethics Guide; the reported decision itself was not opened in this run.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Ohio Ethics Guide (official PDF), citing State v. Coleman, 2026-Ohio-965", "url": "https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Documents/Ohio%20AI%20Guide%20for%20Attorneys.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct's June 2026 Ethics Guide is one of the most detailed US state treatments, covering lawyers and judges; a 2026 state appellate decision has already sanctioned a lawyer for hallucinated filings." }, { "name": "Oklahoma", "code": "OK", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "binding", "note": "Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 1.17 ('Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence'), adopted by order 2026 OK CR 7 on 2026-02-18: where generative AI has been used in drafting any document filed in the OCCA, the party or counsel must ensure that every portion produced or modified by generative AI 'has been verified as accurate by a person responsible for…", "documents": [ "us-ok-occa-rule-1-17-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "In re: Addition of a New Rule to the Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, 2026 OK CR 7 (official)", "url": "https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/" }, { "label": "OCCA Court Rules index (official)", "url": "https://www.okcca.net/rules/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Oklahoma judiciary AI policy for judges or court staff found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Oklahoma evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Oklahoma-specific guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Oklahoma authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Oklahoma Bar Association ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; Oklahoma is absent from the November 2025 national compilation of AI ethics opinions.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "binding", "note": "Rule 1.17 itself prescribes the sanctions for non-compliance: waiver of the affected issue(s) on appeal, striking of the non-compliant document from the record, and/or a finding of contempt. No individual reported Oklahoma state-court AI sanction was verified in this run.", "documents": [ "us-ok-occa-rule-1-17-generative-ai" ], "sources": [ { "label": "2026 OK CR 7 (official)", "url": "https://www.okcca.net/cases/2026/OK-CR-7/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The Court of Criminal Appeals adopted a binding AI verification rule in February 2026; nothing found from the Oklahoma Supreme Court or the Oklahoma Bar Association." }, { "name": "Oregon", "code": "OR", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Formal Opinion 2025-205 (Feb 2025): 'Lawyers must check for any rules, orders, or other requirements that the court may have in place either prohibiting the use of technology (including AI) in court filings or requiring the disclosure of its use', and must notify the court and correct without delay any false statement of fact or law inadvertently provided (Oregon RPC…", "documents": [ "or-state-bar-formal-opinion-2025-205" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2025-205 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2025-205.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Oregon Judicial Department AI policy for judges or court staff, and no Oregon judicial-ethics opinion on AI, found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Oregon evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Formal Opinion 2025-205 (Feb 2025): Oregon RPC 1.6 requires reasonable efforts to prevent inadvertent or unauthorised disclosure; generative AI creates particular risk because it may incorporate and later disclose sensitive client data, so lawyers must obtain informed consent after clearly describing the risks, or anonymise/redact sensitive client information before input.", "documents": [ "or-state-bar-formal-opinion-2025-205" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2025-205 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2025-205.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Formal Opinion 2025-205 (Feb 2025), Fees section: Oregon RPC 1.5 bars clearly excessive fees and expenses; lawyers may not duplicate charges or falsely inflate billable hours where AI saved time; the engagement letter should state that AI or generative AI will be used and how it affects fees or costs; time spent learning a specialised AI tool may be billed…", "documents": [ "or-state-bar-formal-opinion-2025-205" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2025-205 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2025-205.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion No 2025-205, 'Artificial Intelligence Tools' (Feb 2025). Questions: may Oregon lawyers use AI, and generative AI, in practice? Conclusions: 'Yes, qualified' to both, subject to Oregon RPC 1.1 competence, 1.5 fees, 1.6 confidentiality, 3.3 candor and 5.1/5.3 supervision.", "documents": [ "or-state-bar-formal-opinion-2025-205" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2025-205 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2025-205.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Secondary reporting describes a December 2025 $2,000 sanction against a Portland attorney (two fabricated citations at $500 each plus $1,000 for a fabricated quotation) and a $110,000 sanction in a 2025 Oregon case with 23 fabricated citations, but neither was confirmed as a state-court (as opposed to federal district court) decision before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2025-205 is the governing guidance; no statewide Oregon court AI rule located." }, { "name": "Pennsylvania", "code": "PA", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (May 2024) recommends as best practice that lawyers 'be transparent with clients, colleagues, and the courts about the use of AI tools in legal practice, including disclosing any limitations or uncertainties associated with AI-generated content'.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "PBA/Philadelphia Bar Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Pennsylvania judiciary AI policy for judges or court staff, and no Pennsylvania judicial-ethics opinion on AI, found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Pennsylvania evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04, although the opinion warns lawyers not to let AI content be used to 'deceive or manipulate legal processes, evidence, or outcomes'.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (May 2024): lawyers must safeguard information relating to the representation and ensure AI systems handling confidential data adhere to strict confidentiality measures and will not share that data with other clients or persons outside the privilege; client consent should be obtained before using certain AI tools.", "documents": [ "us-pa-joint-formal-opinion-2024-200" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (May 2024): 'Lawyers must ensure that AI-related expenses are reasonable and appropriately disclosed to clients.' The opinion treats AI's time-saving capability as engaging the general reasonableness duty rather than prescribing a formula.", "documents": [ "us-pa-joint-formal-opinion-2024-200" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Pennsylvania Bar Association Committee on Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility and Philadelphia Bar Association Professional Guidance Committee, Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200, 'Ethical Issues Regarding the Use of Artificial Intelligence' (May 2024): with appropriate safeguards lawyers may use AI under the Pennsylvania RPCs; twelve best practices cover truthfulness, citation verification, competence, confidentiality, conflicts, client communication, bias, misuse, billing, professional judgment and…", "documents": [ "us-pa-joint-formal-opinion-2024-200" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Joint Formal Opinion 2024-200 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.pabar.org/Members/catalogs/Ethics%20Opinions/Formal/Joint%20Formal%20Opinion%202024-200.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Pennsylvania state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Governed by the PBA/Philadelphia Bar joint formal opinion of May 2024; no statewide court AI rule found. Note that some secondary trackers wrongly describe Pennsylvania as mandating AI disclosure in court submissions — the opinion recommends transparency, it does not require disclosure." }, { "name": "Rhode Island", "code": "RI", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Interim Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Generative AI by Rhode Island Lawyers (adopted by Supreme Court order 2026-06-17): before filing any document created by, with or through a GAI tool, a lawyer must review all output for accuracy, verify citations and statements of fact or law, fix errors and revise false or misleading arguments (Rules 3.1 and 3.3).", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "In re Amendments to Article V, Rule 1.1 and Adoption of Interim Generative AI Guidelines, Supreme Court order 17 Jun 2026 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf" }, { "label": "Interim Guidelines … by Rhode Island Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Documents/Interim_Guidelines_Ethical_Use_of_Generative_AI_by_RI_Lawyers.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Interim Guidelines for the Ethical Use of Generative AI by Rhode Island Judicial Officers (adopted 2026-06-17, advisory not binding): judicial officers 'may consult or review but should never rely on GAI-produced content when drafting official documents such as orders and decisions', and GAI content must never influence or appear to influence any conclusion or final decision (Rules 1.2, 2.4, 2.7).", "documents": [ "us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court order and both sets of Interim Guidelines (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Lawyer guidelines (2026-06-17), Rules 3.1/3.3 section: a lawyer's pre-filing review must ensure 'the authenticity, factual accuracy, and absence of manipulation or misrepresentation in any GAI-produced, processed, or enhanced evidence or other exhibit upon which the lawyer relies'. No Rhode Island evidence-rule amendment on deepfakes was found.", "documents": [ "us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Interim Guidelines … by Rhode Island Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Documents/Interim_Guidelines_Ethical_Use_of_Generative_AI_by_RI_Lawyers.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Lawyer guidelines (2026-06-17), Rule 1.6: before using any GAI tool for legal work a lawyer should read and understand its terms of use and privacy policy to establish whether it preserves confidentiality, whether those obligations are enforceable, whether breach notification applies and whether inputs are retained after service ends; consultation with technology professionals may be necessary.", "documents": [ "us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Interim Guidelines … by Rhode Island Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Documents/Interim_Guidelines_Ethical_Use_of_Generative_AI_by_RI_Lawyers.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Lawyer guidelines (2026-06-17), Rule 1.5: a lawyer may charge only for actual time spent (a task reduced from two hours to one is billed as one hour); fixed and contingent fees must still reflect the value of the work; the cost of everyday GAI tools is office overhead and may not be billed to the client, while reasonable out-of-pocket costs…", "documents": [ "us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Interim Guidelines … by Rhode Island Lawyers (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Documents/Interim_Guidelines_Ethical_Use_of_Generative_AI_by_RI_Lawyers.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "binding", "note": "Supreme Court order of 2026-06-17 amended Article V, Rule 1.1 Comment [6] so that competence expressly includes keeping abreast of 'the benefits and risks associated with existing and developing technology' — a binding rule amendment — and simultaneously adopted the two advisory interim GAI guidelines. Lawyers with specific GAI questions are directed to the Supreme Court's Ethics Advisory Panel.", "documents": [ "us-ri-supreme-court-order-genai-guidelines" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Supreme Court order, 17 Jun 2026 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courts.ri.gov/Miscellaneous%20Orders/Supreme-2026-06_In_reAmendments_Article_V_Rule_1_1_Professional_Conduct.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "The lawyer guidelines note that courts and disciplinary bodies generally 'have begun levying sanctions against GAI misuse', but no specific Rhode Island state-court sanction was identified before the search budget was exhausted.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "In June 2026 the Supreme Court amended the competence rule and adopted twin interim generative-AI guidelines — one for lawyers, one for judicial officers — among the most detailed judicial-AI guidance of any US state." }, { "name": "South Carolina", "code": "SC", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Carolina Supreme Court rule, administrative order or standing order requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Carolina judiciary AI policy or judicial-ethics advisory opinion on AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Carolina evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Carolina-specific guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Carolina authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Carolina Bar or Supreme Court ethics advisory opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; South Carolina is recorded as having 'no formal guidance' in state-by-state surveys and is absent from the November 2025 national compilation.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" }, { "label": "Steno, state legal ethics guidance on AI (survey)", "url": "https://brief.steno.com/legal-ai-rules-by-state" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before South Carolina state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No AI court rule, bar ethics opinion or judiciary policy located; ABA Formal Opinion 512 operates as persuasive authority." }, { "name": "South Dakota", "code": "SD", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Dakota Supreme Court rule or circuit-court standing order on AI disclosure or certification found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Dakota judiciary AI policy or judicial-ethics opinion on AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Dakota evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Dakota-specific guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No South Dakota authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No State Bar of South Dakota ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; recorded as 'no formal guidance' in state-by-state surveys and absent from the November 2025 national compilation.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" }, { "label": "Steno, state legal ethics guidance on AI (survey)", "url": "https://brief.steno.com/legal-ai-rules-by-state" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before South Dakota state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No AI court rule, bar ethics opinion or judiciary policy located." }, { "name": "Tennessee", "code": "TN", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Tennessee Supreme Court rule or statewide order requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Tennessee judiciary AI policy for judges or court staff found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Tennessee evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Tennessee-specific guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Tennessee authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "proposed", "note": "The Tennessee Bar Association established an AI Task Force in 2024 to advise lawyers on proper use and risks of AI, but had published no formal recommendations or ethics opinion as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Tennessee state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No court rule or ethics opinion; a Tennessee Bar Association AI task force has been running since 2024 without published recommendations, and the Supreme Court has consulted on AI's role in access to justice." }, { "name": "Texas", "code": "TX", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705 (Feb 2025) requires lawyers to verify all generative-AI output before relying on it or filing it, but imposes no general disclosure duty.", "documents": [ "tx-professional-ethics-opinion-705" ], "sources": [ { "label": "State Bar of Texas Professional Ethics Committee Opinion 705", "url": "https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/" }, { "label": "Opinion 705 (official PDF mirror)", "url": "https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_705.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No Texas judiciary AI policy for judges or court staff was located before the search budget was exhausted; re-check txcourts.gov and the Office of Court Administration.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Texas evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion 705 (Feb 2025): confidential client information must be protected; lawyers should review a tool's terms on data use and retention before entering client information.", "documents": [ "tx-professional-ethics-opinion-705" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion 705", "url": "https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Opinion 705 (Feb 2025): lawyers may not bill clients for time not actually expended, so efficiency gains from generative AI must be passed through rather than billed at pre-AI estimates.", "documents": [ "tx-professional-ethics-opinion-705" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion 705", "url": "https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas, Opinion 705, 'Generative Artificial Intelligence' (Feb 2025): lawyers must reasonably understand the tool and its risks, protect client confidentiality, verify all output, supervise staff, and bill only for time actually expended.", "documents": [ "tx-professional-ethics-opinion-705" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Opinion 705", "url": "https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-705/" }, { "label": "State Bar of Texas TRAIL interim report (July 2024)", "url": "https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Meeting_Agendas_and_Minutes&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=62597" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Texas state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "State Bar Opinion 705 (Feb 2025) is the governing guidance; no statewide court AI rule located, though individual Texas judges have issued AI certification orders." }, { "name": "Utah", "code": "UT", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Utah Supreme Court or district-court rule requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Utah Judicial Council interim rules on the use of generative AI, effective 2025-10-27, apply to court-related work and court-owned devices. They operate as an allow-list: eight tools are expressly permitted (Adobe Firefly, ChatGPT, Claude.ai (beta), Gemini Pro, Microsoft Copilot, NotebookLM, Webex Cisco AI Assistant, Westlaw) and 'any AI tools not expressly permitted in the attached interim rules is prohibited'.", "documents": [ "us-ut-judicial-council-interim-genai-rules" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Utah Judiciary HR, AI Information (official)", "url": "https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Utah evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "The Judicial Council interim rules (2025-10-27) restrict court staff and judicial officers to the eight approved tools for court-related work, which functions as the judiciary's data-protection control; no Utah lawyer-facing guidance on client data in AI tools was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Utah Judiciary HR, AI Information (official)", "url": "https://sites.google.com/utcourts.gov/courts-hr/policy/ai-information" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Utah authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Utah State Bar formal ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; state-by-state surveys cite only a Utah Bar Journal article, 'Using ChatGPT in Our Practices: Ethical Considerations', which is commentary rather than an opinion. Utah is absent from the November 2025 national compilation of AI ethics opinions.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Utah state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "The Judicial Council operates an allow-list AI policy for court staff and judicial officers (effective 27 October 2025); no bar ethics opinion or filing rule located." }, { "name": "Vermont", "code": "VT", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Vermont Supreme Court rule, administrative order or standing order on AI disclosure or certification found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Vermont judiciary AI policy or judicial-ethics opinion on AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Vermont evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Vermont-specific guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Vermont authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Vermont Bar Association or Professional Responsibility Board ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; recorded as 'no formal guidance' in state-by-state surveys and absent from the November 2025 national compilation.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Steno, state legal ethics guidance on AI (survey)", "url": "https://brief.steno.com/legal-ai-rules-by-state" }, { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Vermont state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No AI court rule, bar ethics opinion or judiciary policy located." }, { "name": "Virginia", "code": "VA", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Supreme Court of Virginia rule or circuit-court standing order requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Virginia judiciary AI policy for judges or court staff, and no Virginia judicial-ethics opinion on AI, found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Virginia evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "unclear", "note": "LEO 1901 is confined to fees. The VSB Standing Committee's February 2024 'Guidance on Generative Artificial Intelligence' is expected to address confidentiality, but the vsb.org ethics page could not be opened in this run.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "VSB legal ethics resources (official, not openable in this run)", "url": "https://vsb.org/Site/Site/lawyers/ethics.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "binding", "note": "LEO 1901 (approved 2025-11-24): value-based and flat fees may reflect efficiency gains, the specialised skill of effectively incorporating the technology, and the value of the output, and remain reasonable under Rule 1.5(a); a lawyer is not ethically required to reduce a flat or value-based fee solely because AI accelerated the work; Rule 1.5(b) may require additional explanation of why the…", "documents": [ "us-va-legal-ethics-opinion-1901" ], "sources": [ { "label": "LEO 1901 (official PDF)", "url": "https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1901.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "binding", "note": "Virginia State Bar Legal Ethics Opinion 1901, 'Reasonable Fees and the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence', approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia on 2025-11-24 (one national compilation dates the approval 23 Nov 2025) and effective immediately; the VSB Council had approved the proposed opinion on 2025-06-12. Virginia LEOs approved by the Court carry binding authority.", "documents": [ "us-va-legal-ethics-opinion-1901" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Virginia State Bar LEO 1901 (official PDF)", "url": "https://vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1901.pdf" }, { "label": "LEO 1901 (Supreme Court of Virginia copy)", "url": "https://www.vacourts.gov/static/courts/scv/amendments/leo_1901.pdf" }, { "label": "VSB news, Proposed LEO 1901 approved", "url": "https://vsb.org/Site/Site/news/rules-news/20250327-prop-1901-fees-ai.aspx" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Virginia state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "LEO 1901, approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia in November 2025, is the leading US authority on billing for AI-assisted work; no Virginia court AI filing rule located." }, { "name": "Washington", "code": "WA", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Advisory Opinion 2025-05 (2025): a lawyer must disclose AI use to a tribunal only where a particular court's rules require it — Washington imposes no blanket duty — but RPC 3.3 candor requires verifying accuracy before filing and correcting any false AI-generated material discovered afterwards. No Washington statewide court rule or general rule on AI in filings was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/legal-community/committees/committee-on-professional-ethics/ao-202505.pdf" }, { "label": "WSBA advisory opinions database entry", "url": "https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1713" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "unclear", "note": "No Washington courts AI policy for judges or court staff was located before the search budget was exhausted; courts.wa.gov did not resolve from this environment.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Washington evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Advisory Opinion 2025-05 (RPC 1.6(c)): consumer-oriented AI platforms without confidentiality assurances are generally unsuitable for client information; business-tailored tools must be evaluated through vendor contracts and terms of use; client consent may be required, and the opinion flags unauthorised disclosure risk from vendor employees' access to chat history.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/legal-community/committees/committee-on-professional-ethics/ao-202505.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Advisory Opinion 2025-05, section G (RPC 1.5): billing for AI tools must be reasonable; lawyers may charge for time actually spent, including crafting prompts and reviewing output, but may not bill for 'time saved'; the cost of AI tools may be absorbed as overhead or billed separately as an expense provided RPC 1.5(b) explanation duties are met.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/legal-community/committees/committee-on-professional-ethics/ao-202505.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Washington State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics, Advisory Opinion 2025-05, 'Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Tools in Law Practice' (2025), addressing RPCs 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.3. Deliberately broad definitions cover machine-based, generative, agentic and prospective autonomous AI. WSBA advisory opinions are non-binding.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.wsba.org/docs/default-source/legal-community/committees/committee-on-professional-ethics/ao-202505.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Washington state-court AI sanctions could be checked; the advisory opinion itself relies on the Colorado case People v. Crabill rather than any Washington precedent.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "WSBA Advisory Opinion 2025-05 is an unusually broad treatment covering machine, generative, agentic and future autonomous AI; no statewide court AI rule located." }, { "name": "West Virginia", "code": "WV", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (2024-06-14): nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct per se prohibits AI use, but 'lawyers are cautioned to check for jurisdiction specific rules or standing orders' on whether generative AI is prohibited for pleadings, whether its use must be disclosed, and whether human verification of filings must be certified.", "documents": [ "us-wv-legal-ethics-opinion-24-01" ], "sources": [ { "label": "West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board, Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (official PDF)", "url": "https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission Advisory Opinion 2023-22 (2023-10-13), applying Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4(B), 2.5(A) and 2.7: 'a judge may use AI for research purposes but may not use it to decide the outcome of a case'; using AI to draft findings, conclusions and the ultimate decision 'should be met with extreme caution'; AI is…", "documents": [ "us-wv-jic-advisory-opinion-2023-22" ], "sources": [ { "label": "WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/JIC%20Advisory%20Opinion%202023-22_Redacted.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No West Virginia evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated or deepfake evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "For lawyers, Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (2024-06-14) requires maintaining client confidentiality when using AI and warns that a generative AI intake chatbot creates additional risk. For judges, JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 requires researching an AI product's data handling and refraining from inputting information that may be retained or disclosed, particularly in confidential juvenile and abuse-and-neglect matters.", "documents": [ "us-wv-legal-ethics-opinion-24-01", "us-wv-jic-advisory-opinion-2023-22" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (official PDF)", "url": "https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf" }, { "label": "WV JIC Advisory Opinion 2023-22 (official PDF)", "url": "https://www.courtswv.gov/sites/default/pubfilesmnt/2023-11/JIC%20Advisory%20Opinion%202023-22_Redacted.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (2024-06-14), n.2: generative AI 'may make a lawyer's work more efficient, but this increase in efficiency must not result in double billing for services or falsely inflated claims of time', citing Rules 1.5, 8.4(c) and 8.4(d).", "documents": [ "us-wv-legal-ethics-opinion-24-01" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (official PDF)", "url": "https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "guidance", "note": "West Virginia Lawyer Disciplinary Board, Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01, 'Artificial Intelligence' (2024-06-14): distinguishes non-generative from generative AI and holds that lawyers using AI must exercise independent judgment, communicate with clients, maintain client confidentiality, keep fees and costs reasonable, comply with advertising regulations and supervise AI-assisted work.", "documents": [ "us-wv-legal-ethics-opinion-24-01" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Legal Ethics Opinion 24-01 (official PDF)", "url": "https://storage.googleapis.com/msgsndr/Rgd68xOkcVdteTsBkf6O/media/667ac9c219bb7a1f7a4df4c2.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before West Virginia state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "Unusually early on judicial AI: the Judicial Investigation Commission ruled in October 2023 that a judge may use AI for research but never to decide a case; a lawyer ethics opinion followed in June 2024." }, { "name": "Wisconsin", "code": "WI", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wisconsin Supreme Court rule, administrative order or circuit-court standing order on AI disclosure or certification found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wisconsin judiciary AI policy or judicial-ethics opinion on AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wisconsin evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wisconsin-specific guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wisconsin authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No State Bar of Wisconsin formal ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; surveys record 'no formal guidance available', with the Bar providing educational resources while the existing Wisconsin Supreme Court Rules govern attorney conduct. Wisconsin is absent from the November 2025 national compilation.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Steno, state legal ethics guidance on AI (survey)", "url": "https://brief.steno.com/legal-ai-rules-by-state" }, { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Wisconsin state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No AI court rule or bar ethics opinion located; the State Bar provides educational material only and the existing Supreme Court Rules govern by default." }, { "name": "Wyoming", "code": "WY", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wyoming Supreme Court rule or district-court standing order on AI disclosure or certification found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wyoming judiciary AI policy or judicial-ethics opinion on AI found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wyoming evidence-rule amendment or reported decision on AI-generated evidence found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wyoming-specific guidance on client data in AI tools found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wyoming authority on billing for AI-assisted work found as of 2026-09-04.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No Wyoming State Bar ethics opinion on generative AI found as of 2026-09-04; surveys record 'no formal guidance available' and Wyoming is absent from the November 2025 national compilation. (Wyoming is notable instead for the 2024 Wadsworth v. Walmart federal sanctions case, which is out of scope for a state matrix.)", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Steno, state legal ethics guidance on AI (survey)", "url": "https://brief.steno.com/legal-ai-rules-by-state" }, { "label": "Compilation, Current AI ethics opinions and other authorities (29 Nov 2025)", "url": "https://tnlawinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Current-AI-ethics-opinions-and-other-authorities-11-29-25-1.pdf" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Search budget exhausted before Wyoming state-court AI sanctions could be checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "note": "No AI court rule, bar ethics opinion or judiciary policy located." } ], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "ABA Formal Opinion 512 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf" }, { "label": "US Courts — Director's Annual Report 2025, Court Operations (AI Task Force and interim guidance)", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/annual-reports/directors-annual-report/annual-report-2025/court-operations-annual-report-2025" }, { "label": "US Courts — Standing Committee agenda book, June 2026 (FRE 707)", "url": "https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/document/2026-06_standing_committee_meeting_agenda_book_final.pdf" }, { "label": "EOIR Policy Memorandum 25-40 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1410621/dl?inline=" }, { "label": "USPTO guidance on AI tools in practice, 89 FR 25609", "url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/11/2024-07629/guidance-on-use-of-artificial-intelligence-based-tools-in-practice-before-the-united-states-patent" }, { "label": "Fifth Circuit decision not to adopt proposed Rule 32.3 (PDF)", "url": "https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/court-decision-on-proposed-rule.pdf" }, { "label": "Administrative Office letter to Senator Grassley (PDF)", "url": "https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ao_to_grassley_re_judiciary_use_of_ai.pdf" } ] }, { "id": "uy", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/uy", "name": "Uruguay", "iso": "UY", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Uruguay has no rule, guidance or reported case on AI in legal practice. Ley 20.212 of 2023 tasks the e-government agency with a national data and AI strategy, and the country adhered to UNESCO and OECD AI recommendations, but the Supreme Court has issued nothing and the judiciary reported no AI applications.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Justice (Suprema Corte de Justicia)", "url": "https://www.poderjudicial.gub.uy/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Agency for e-Government and Information Society (AGESIC)", "url": "https://www.gub.uy/agencia-gobierno-electronico-sociedad-informacion-conocimiento/", "role": "regulator" }, { "name": "Uruguayan Bar Association (Colegio de Abogados del Uruguay)", "url": "https://www.colegiodeabogados.org.uy/", "role": "bar" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Supreme Court acordada on AI was identified in the national report to the XXVIII Ibero-American Procedural Law Conference of April 2025. No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Relato Uruguay, XXVIII Jornadas Iberoamericanas de Derecho Procesal", "url": "https://gabrielvalentin.com/2025/04/28/inteligencia-artificial-y-proceso-judicial-relato-uruguay-para-xxviii-jornadas-iberoamericanas-de-derecho-procesal/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the Uruguayan Bar Association found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "The judiciary reported no AI applications beyond its case-management systems as of April 2025, and no policy was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Relato Uruguay, XXVIII Jornadas Iberoamericanas de Derecho Procesal", "url": "https://gabrielvalentin.com/2025/04/28/inteligencia-artificial-y-proceso-judicial-relato-uruguay-para-xxviii-jornadas-iberoamericanas-de-derecho-procesal/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Ley 18.331 applies; whether the data-protection regulator has issued AI-specific guidance could not be checked against official sources in this research window.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI statute. Ley 20.212 of 6 November 2023, article 74, mandates the e-government agency to design a national data and AI strategy, and a 2020 AI strategy for digital government exists. No bill classifying legal uses was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Relato Uruguay, XXVIII Jornadas Iberoamericanas de Derecho Procesal", "url": "https://gabrielvalentin.com/2025/04/28/inteligencia-artificial-y-proceso-judicial-relato-uruguay-para-xxviii-jornadas-iberoamericanas-de-derecho-procesal/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Relato Uruguay, XXVIII Jornadas Iberoamericanas de Derecho Procesal", "url": "https://gabrielvalentin.com/2025/04/28/inteligencia-artificial-y-proceso-judicial-relato-uruguay-para-xxviii-jornadas-iberoamericanas-de-derecho-procesal/" } ] }, { "id": "uz", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/uz", "name": "Uzbekistan", "iso": "UZ", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Uzbekistan has no verified AI rule for legal practice. A government AI programme and later amendments were verified, but searches found no court AI disclosure rule, judicial-use guidance, bar ethics opinion, legal-AI sanction or AI Act-style justice classification.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Court of Uzbekistan", "url": "https://sud.uz/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice", "url": "https://gov.uz/oz/adliya", "role": "justice ministry" }, { "name": "Personalisation Agency", "url": "https://pd.gov.uz/", "role": "data-protection" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No Supreme Court AI deployment policy found; the verified AI programme is government-wide and not court-specific.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lex.uz: measures for accelerated introduction of AI technologies", "url": "https://lex.uz/docs/5297046" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Uzbekistan has a personal-data law and localisation rules; no AI-specific legal-services guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Uzbekistan", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=UZ" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "The verified presidential AI programme promotes AI deployment, but no AI Act-style statute or justice/legal risk classification was found.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Lex.uz: measures for accelerated introduction of AI technologies", "url": "https://lex.uz/docs/5297046" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "Lex.uz: measures for accelerated introduction of AI technologies", "url": "https://lex.uz/docs/5297046" }, { "label": "Ministry of Digital Technologies", "url": "https://digital.gov.uz/" }, { "label": "Personalisation Agency", "url": "https://pd.gov.uz/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Uzbekistan", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=UZ" } ] }, { "id": "ve", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/ve", "name": "Venezuela", "iso": "VE", "region": "americas", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Venezuela has no verified rule, guidance or case on AI in legal practice. Searches of the Supreme Tribunal, bar, legislature, telecoms and data-protection materials found no AI disclosure rule, judicial-use guidance, lawyer ethics opinion, legal-AI sanction or AI Act-style statute.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Tribunal Supremo de Justicia)", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "National Institute of the Lawyer (Instituto de Prevision Social del Abogado)", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "National Assembly", "url": "https://www.asambleanacional.gob.ve/", "role": "legislature" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure of AI use in filings found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing an AI-specific verification duty found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary guidance for judges or court staff using generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, judgment drafting or decision-making found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-generated-evidence or deepfake admissibility rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar guidance on entering client data into AI tools found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-competence rule or guidance naming AI or generative AI found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule requiring lawyers to inform clients or obtain consent for AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No ethics rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or case on consumer AI legal services or unauthorised practice found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No generative-AI guidance from the national bar or law society found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No published court AI deployment policy or court-owned AI project found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "No AI-specific data-protection authority guidance found; Venezuela has no single comprehensive data-protection statute in the materials checked.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Venezuela", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=VE" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "none", "note": "No horizontal AI statute, AI Act-style risk classification or public AI bill regulating legal or justice uses was verified as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No reported sanction for AI-hallucinated citations or AI-fabricated legal content found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No arbitration or ADR institution rule or guidance on AI use found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "National Assembly of Venezuela", "url": "https://www.asambleanacional.gob.ve/" }, { "label": "CONATEL", "url": "https://conatel.gob.ve/" }, { "label": "DLA Piper Data Protection: Venezuela", "url": "https://www.dlapiperdataprotection.com/index.html?t=law&c=VE" } ] }, { "id": "vn", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/vn", "name": "Vietnam", "iso": "VN", "region": "asia-pacific", "legalSystem": "civil-law", "summary": "Vietnam has the region's largest judicial AI deployment and no legal-practice rules to match it: the Supreme People's Court's virtual assistant is in nationwide judicial use, governed by policy statements rather than a published instrument. A national AI strategy was approved on 28 August 2026 and a draft AI law is under discussion; the Bar Federation has issued no guidance.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Supreme People's Court [Toa an nhan dan toi cao, TANDTC]", "url": "https://tapchitoaan.vn/", "role": "court" }, { "name": "Ministry of Justice [Bo Tu phap]", "url": "https://moj.gov.vn/", "role": "government" }, { "name": "Vietnam Bar Federation [Lien doan Luat su Viet Nam]", "url": "https://liendoanluatsu.org.vn/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Government of Vietnam (Prime Minister)", "url": "https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/", "role": "government" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No filing-disclosure rule was located; the Supreme People's Court's own site (toaan.gov.vn) was unreachable from this environment.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Non-binding and journal-level. A Supreme People's Court journal article warns that ChatGPT does not access official case databases directly and that outputs must be independently verified. It is authored commentary, not an instrument.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tap chi Toa an nhan dan — using ChatGPT and the court virtual assistant to research judgments (9 Oct 2025)", "url": "https://tapchitoaan.vn/su-dung-chatgpt-va-tro-ly-ao-toa-an-de-tra-cuu-tong-hop-ban-an-co-noi-dung-tuong-tu-trong-hoat-dong-xet-xu-cua-toa-an-mot-so-van-de-can-luu-y14214.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "guidance", "note": "A Supreme People's Court training conference on 20 January 2026 set the operating principle that AI does not replace judges, and that humans bear final responsibility for all results. This is a policy statement, not a published regulation.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tap chi Toa an nhan dan — TANDTC AI training conference (20 Jan 2026)", "url": "https://tapchitoaan.vn/tandtc-to-chuc-hoi-nghi-tap-huan-ve-tri-tue-nhan-tao-phuc-vu-hoat-dong-toa-an14837.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Same source: humans bear final responsibility for every result, and the court's journal stresses that AI is a support tool rather than a substitute for independent judicial reasoning. No binding prohibition has been published.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tap chi Toa an nhan dan — TANDTC AI training conference", "url": "https://tapchitoaan.vn/tandtc-to-chuc-hoi-nghi-tap-huan-ve-tri-tue-nhan-tao-phuc-vu-hoat-dong-toa-an14837.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Vietnamese court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated; no AI or deepfake evidence rule located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Journal-level only. The court's journal tells judges not to enter un-anonymised personal data into these tools and not to analyse unpublished case files in them. No binding confidentiality rule for AI use was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tap chi Toa an nhan dan — cautions on ChatGPT and the virtual assistant", "url": "https://tapchitoaan.vn/su-dung-chatgpt-va-tro-ly-ao-toa-an-de-tra-cuu-tong-hop-ban-an-co-noi-dung-tuong-tu-trong-hoat-dong-xet-xu-cua-toa-an-mot-so-van-de-can-luu-y14214.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. The Code of Professional Ethics and Conduct of Vietnamese Lawyers was not opened.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Vietnamese supervision duty specific to AI-assisted work was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Vietnamese requirement to inform clients of AI use was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Vietnamese rule or guidance on billing for AI-assisted work was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. No Vietnamese determination on consumer AI legal products was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Leaning negative. A site search of the Vietnam Bar Federation for tri tue nhan tao surfaced only a LAWASIA 2023 conference report on AI's impact on the profession, and no Federation rule or guidance.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Vietnam Bar Federation — LAWASIA 2023 report on AI and the legal profession", "url": "https://liendoanluatsu.org.vn/hoi-nghi-thuong-nien-lawasia-2023-nhung-tac-dong-cua-tri-tue-nhan-tao-doi-voi-nghe-luat-su/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "binding", "note": "Operational at national scale. The Court Virtual Assistant is in live use by judges for drafting support, retrieval, summarisation and automated case-file processing, rolled out to roughly 400 connection points, and the Supreme People's Court is pursuing sovereign AI on its own data. The governing instrument could not be located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tap chi Toa an nhan dan — TANDTC AI training conference (20 Jan 2026)", "url": "https://tapchitoaan.vn/tandtc-to-chuc-hoi-nghi-tap-huan-ve-tri-tue-nhan-tao-phuc-vu-hoat-dong-toa-an14837.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Vietnam has a Law on Personal Data Protection (2025) and Decree 13/2023/ND-CP, but neither official text could be opened from this environment (moj.gov.vn returned HTTP 403 and the government gazette portal search could not be driven), so no AI-specific application is recorded.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "proposed", "note": "A draft Law on Artificial Intelligence is under discussion, and the Supreme People's Court journal analyses its damages and liability provisions, but the draft text and its legislative status were not opened. Decision 1671/QD-TTg of 28 August 2026 approves the national AI strategy to 2030 with a vision to 2045, superseding Decision 127/QD-TTg.", "documents": [ "vn-decision-1671-national-ai-strategy" ], "sources": [ { "label": "Quyet dinh 1671/QD-TTg — national AI strategy to 2030, vision 2045 (28 Aug 2026)", "url": "https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/?pageid=27160&docid=219354" }, { "label": "Tap chi Toa an nhan dan — on damages provisions in the draft Law on AI", "url": "https://tapchitoaan.vn/mot-so-kien-nghi-hoan-thien-quy-dinh-ve-boi-thuong-thiet-hai-do-he-thong-tri-tue-nhan-tao-gay-ra-trong-du-thao-luat-tri-tue-nhan-tao14609.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No Vietnamese decision involving AI-fabricated citations was found as of 4 September 2026; the Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database contains no Vietnamese entry.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "AI Hallucination Cases database (no Vietnamese entries)", "url": "https://www.damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not established. A VIAC site search returned no AI-related items, but its search parameter does not filter, so this is not evidence of absence.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC)", "url": "https://www.viac.vn/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Judicial side only. The Supreme People's Court ran a nationwide AI training conference for the court system on 20 January 2026 across roughly 400 connection points. Nothing equivalent was found for lawyers.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Tap chi Toa an nhan dan — TANDTC AI training conference", "url": "https://tapchitoaan.vn/tandtc-to-chuc-hoi-nghi-tap-huan-ve-tri-tue-nhan-tao-phuc-vu-hoat-dong-toa-an14837.html" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "unclear", "note": "Not substantiated. The sovereign-AI framing implies a preference for in-house and state systems, but no procurement instrument was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": false, "sources": [ { "label": "Tap chi Toa an nhan dan — Supreme People's Court AI training conference (20 Jan 2026)", "url": "https://tapchitoaan.vn/tandtc-to-chuc-hoi-nghi-tap-huan-ve-tri-tue-nhan-tao-phuc-vu-hoat-dong-toa-an14837.html" }, { "label": "Tap chi Toa an nhan dan — cautions on using ChatGPT and the court virtual assistant (9 Oct 2025)", "url": "https://tapchitoaan.vn/su-dung-chatgpt-va-tro-ly-ao-toa-an-de-tra-cuu-tong-hop-ban-an-co-noi-dung-tuong-tu-trong-hoat-dong-xet-xu-cua-toa-an-mot-so-van-de-can-luu-y14214.html" }, { "label": "Quyet dinh 1671/QD-TTg — national AI strategy to 2030, vision 2045", "url": "https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/?pageid=27160&docid=219354" } ] }, { "id": "zm", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/zm", "name": "Zambia", "iso": "ZM", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "common-law", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Zambia has no legal-practice AI rule or court/bar guidance found. Its National AI Strategy 2025-2027 sets a cross-sector framework for ethical AI, public services and a National AI Council, and Cabinet approved in principle a data-law bill to address AI, machine learning and data analytics.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Law Association of Zambia", "url": "https://www.laz.org.zm/", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Judiciary of Zambia", "url": "https://judiciaryzambia.com/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Zambia Information and Communications Technology Authority", "url": "https://www.zicta.zm/", "role": "ICT/data regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "proposed", "note": "Zambia Monitor reports Cabinet approval in principle on 24 April 2025 for a Bill to repeal the 2021 Data Protection Act and expand data law to AI, machine learning and analytics. No bill text or enacted AI-data rule was located.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "Zambia Monitor — Cabinet approves data-protection repeal bill for AI and analytics", "url": "https://zambiamonitor.com/cabinet-approves-repeal-of-data-protection-act-to-broaden-legal-framework-for-ai-analytics/" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "Zambia’s National AI Strategy 2025-2027 sets a national framework for responsible AI, policy and regulation, skills, data ecosystems, sectoral adoption, a National AI Council and technical working groups. It is not a binding legal-practice rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — National Artificial Intelligence Strategy of Zambia 2025-2027", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/national-artificial-intelligence-strategy-of-zambia-2025-2027" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — National Artificial Intelligence Strategy of Zambia 2025-2027", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/national-artificial-intelligence-strategy-of-zambia-2025-2027" }, { "label": "Zambia Monitor — Cabinet approves data-protection repeal bill for AI and analytics", "url": "https://zambiamonitor.com/cabinet-approves-repeal-of-data-protection-act-to-broaden-legal-framework-for-ai-analytics/" }, { "label": "Law Association of Zambia", "url": "https://www.laz.org.zm/" }, { "label": "Judiciary of Zambia", "url": "https://judiciaryzambia.com/" }, { "label": "ZICTA", "url": "https://www.zicta.zm/" } ] }, { "id": "zw", "url": "https://safelegalai.com/regulation/country/zw", "name": "Zimbabwe", "iso": "ZW", "region": "africa", "legalSystem": "mixed", "summary": "As of 4 September 2026 Zimbabwe has no court, judiciary or Law Society rule on AI in legal practice located. Its National AI Strategy 2026-2030 is a soft-law framework for AI governance, ethics and public-sector adoption; general cyber and data-protection law remains the main binding digital framework.", "regulators": [ { "name": "Law Society of Zimbabwe", "role": "bar" }, { "name": "Judicial Service Commission of Zimbabwe", "url": "https://www.jsc.org.zw/", "role": "judiciary" }, { "name": "Postal and Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe", "role": "data/ICT regulator" } ], "jurisdiction": "other", "categories": { "disclosure-filings": { "status": "none", "note": "No court rule, practice direction or reported case requiring disclosure or certification of AI use in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "verification-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, guidance or reported case imposing a duty to verify AI-generated citations before filing or reliance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "judicial-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No judiciary rule or official guidance for judges or court staff using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-decision-prohibition": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule barring AI from adjudicative reasoning, sentencing, bail, credibility findings or judgment drafting was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "litigant-in-person": { "status": "none", "note": "No court guidance for self-represented litigants using AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "evidence-admissibility": { "status": "none", "note": "No evidence rule or official guidance on authentication or admissibility of AI-generated or deepfake material was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "confidentiality-client-data": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar or data-protection AI guidance restricting entry of client data into AI tools was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "competence-duty": { "status": "none", "note": "No professional-conduct rule or guidance naming technology or AI competence for lawyers was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "supervision": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule or guidance on supervising AI-assisted legal work by staff or juniors was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "client-consent-transparency": { "status": "none", "note": "No requirement to inform clients about, or obtain consent for, lawyers’ AI use was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "fees-billing": { "status": "none", "note": "No rule, ethics opinion or guidance on billing for AI-assisted legal work was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "unauthorised-practice": { "status": "none", "note": "No regulator ruling or guidance on consumer AI legal services as unauthorised practice was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "bar-guidance": { "status": "none", "note": "No bar-association or law-society generative-AI guidance for practitioners was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "court-own-use": { "status": "none", "note": "No court or ministry policy on the courts’ own deployment of AI systems was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "data-protection": { "status": "none", "note": "Zimbabwe’s cyber and data-protection framework applies generally, but no POTRAZ or legal-sector guidance applying it specifically to AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "ai-act-horizontal": { "status": "guidance", "note": "OECD.AI describes Zimbabwe’s National AI Strategy 2026-2030 as a framework for AI governance, ethics, regulatory safeguards, public services and an AI Strategy Implementation Office. It is strategy guidance, not a court/legal-profession rule.", "documents": [], "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — Zimbabwe National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2026-2030", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/zimbabwe-national-artificial-intelligence-strategy-2026-2030" } ], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "sanctions-record": { "status": "none", "note": "No decision sanctioning a lawyer or litigant for AI-fabricated citations or AI misuse in filings was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "arbitration-adr": { "status": "none", "note": "No institutional arbitration or mediation rule or guideline on AI was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "training-cle": { "status": "none", "note": "No mandatory AI training or continuing legal education requirement was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" }, "procurement-vendor": { "status": "none", "note": "No legal-sector AI procurement or vendor due-diligence rule or guidance was found as of 4 September 2026.", "documents": [], "sources": [], "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z" } }, "subdivisions": [], "lastUpdated": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "lastVerified": "2026-09-04T00:00:00.000Z", "provisional": true, "sources": [ { "label": "OECD.AI — Zimbabwe National Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2026-2030", "url": "https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/policy-initiatives/zimbabwe-national-artificial-intelligence-strategy-2026-2030" }, { "label": "Judicial Service Commission of Zimbabwe", "url": "https://www.jsc.org.zw/" } ] } ] }