The Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC) has issued Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026, together with accompanying Practice Guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings, setting out a comprehensive framework governing the responsible, transparent, and disciplined use of AI tools before the QFC Court and the Regulatory Tribunal.
The Practice Direction applies to litigants and their legal representatives appearing before the Court and the Regulatory Tribunal. It forms part of the QICDRC’s ongoing efforts to ensure rigorous oversight of materials submitted in proceedings, to regulate the proper use of legal authorities and references, and to reaffirm the obligation on lawyers to independently verify the accuracy and authenticity of all submissions, particularly where AI-based tools are used. These measures are intended to safeguard the confidence of court users in the judicial system and to uphold the administration of justice and the rule of law.
The Practice Direction follows the judgment of Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (E) 3, in which the President of the Court considered submissions filed by the defendant’s legal representative that relied on caselaw purportedly from the QFC Court which did in fact not exist. The Court concluded that the conduct in question went beyond a mere research error or professional oversight, and instead reflected a lack of transparency intended to mislead the Court through reliance on fictitious authorities. The Court held that such conduct exceeded the threshold of professional negligence and amounted to a deliberate act undermining integrity and obstructing the proper administration of justice. The lawyer was found to be in contempt of court.
This judgment marked a significant regional precedent – the first in the MENA region – and attracted wide international attention, particularly in light of the legal issues it raised concerning the use of artificial intelligence tools in legal practice. The judgment reviewed the major cases from across the world on this issue, including those from England and Wales, the United States, Canada and Australia.
In recognising the growing reliance on AI in modern legal work, the judgment and the Practice Direction acknowledge that such tools may offer legitimate benefits, including increased efficiency and reduced costs. However, they make clear that their use is strictly conditional on adherence to professional honesty, ethical standards, and applicable legal obligations.
The Practice Direction makes it clear that legal representatives remain fully responsible for the accuracy, validity, and integrity of all documents and submissions presented to the Court. Lawyers are under a continuing duty to verify legal sources, ensure the correctness of legal reasoning, and confirm that no material submitted contains errors, misrepresentation, or deception, regardless of whether AI tools were used in its preparation.
The Practice Direction also places strong emphasis on confidentiality and data protection. Legal representatives are expressly prohibited from inputting confidential, privileged, or legally protected information into publicly available AI tools. Any breach of this obligation may expose the offending party to disciplinary sanctions in accordance with applicable rules.
While the Practice Direction clarifies that prior disclosure of AI use is not mandatory unless expressly required by the Court, it reinforces transparency as a core principle. Where requested, legal representatives must identify the portions of submissions prepared with the assistance of AI and explain the steps taken to verify their accuracy and ensure compliance with professional and ethical standards.
On this occasion, Mr. Faisal Bin Rashid Al-Sahouti, QICDRC CEO, affirmed that the issuance of this Practice Direction reflects the QICDRC's commitment to keeping pace with modern technological developments in the field of dispute resolution, and to ensuring that artificial intelligence tools are utilised within a framework of legal discipline and professional responsibility. This, he noted, helps to safeguard the integrity of judicial proceedings and strengthen the confidence of court users in the justice system.
