The Qatar International Court (“Court”) and Dispute Resolution Centre (“QICDRC”) has issued a new Procedural Directive No. (1) of 2026 governing the disciplined use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools in legal proceedings (“Directive”). The Directive applies to all litigants and legal representatives appearing before the Court and the Regulatory Tribunal. Accordingly, references in this article to the Court include the Regulatory Tribunal, as applicable.
The Directive forms part of the Court’s enhanced commitment to ensuring rigorous oversight of all documents and legal submissions. It regulates reliance on legal authorities and sources and obliges attorneys to conduct thorough verification and certification of the accuracy of all materials submitted to the Court, particularly when AI-powered tools are used.
It also aims to preserve litigants’ confidence in the judicial system and to uphold the principle of procedural legality, which represents a cornerstone of justice and a fundamental safeguard of the right to litigation.
The Directive follows a judgment issued by the Court of First Instance in Case No. [2025] QIC (E) 3. In that case, the Court found that counsel for the defendant’s legal submissions relied on alleged judicial precedents that later proved to be non-existent and fabricated. The Court concluded that this conduct did not amount to a simple research error or an isolated professional lapse.
Rather, the Court held that the submissions reflected a breach of the duty of candour and transparency owed to the tribunal and were intended to mislead the Court by citing non-existent legal authorities. As such, the conduct exceeded the threshold of professional negligence and constituted intentional misconduct, undermining judicial integrity and obstructing the proper administration of justice.
The QICDRC described that judgment as a landmark judicial precedent—the first of its kind in the Middle East and North Africa region—which attracted wide international attention due to the legal issues it raised regarding the use of AI tools in legal practice. The judgment also reviewed comparative jurisprudence from several jurisdictions, including England and Wales, the United States, Canada, and Australia.
The growing reliance on AI-powered tools in legal practice has become a practical reality of the modern workplace and may offer tangible benefits by reducing costs and enhancing efficiency. However, the Court stressed that such use must remain subject to professional integrity, ethical obligations, and the requirements of the law.
Under the new Directive, attorneys remain fully responsible for the accuracy, correctness, and integrity of all submissions made to the Court. They are required to verify all information, ensure the soundness of legal reasoning, and confirm that filings contain no errors, misrepresentations, or misleading content.
The Directive also underscores the importance of confidentiality and privacy, expressly prohibiting the input of confidential or legally protected information into publicly accessible AI tools. Any breach of this prohibition may expose the responsible party to disciplinary sanctions prescribed by law.
Additionally, the Directive clarifies that pre-filing disclosure of the use of AI tools in drafting submissions is not mandatory unless expressly requested by the Court. Nevertheless, it emphasises adherence to the principle of transparency. Where disclosure is required, attorneys must identify the portions of the submission drafted using AI and certify the measures taken to review and verify their accuracy in accordance with applicable professional standards.
The Directive may be found here: https://www.qicdrc.gov.qa/courts/court/regulations-and-procedural-rules
