From the journal

Irish High Court Practice Direction Sets AI Accuracy Obligations for Court Filings, 2026

The Irish High Court issued a practice direction in 2026 requiring practitioners to review and verify all generative AI-generated content before filing. The direction applies across High Court proceedings and establishes a supervisory duty on the responsible lawyer, citing risks of AI-generated inaccuracies including fabricated case citations.

3 min read

The Irish High Court issued a practice direction in 2026 on the responsible use of generative AI in court documents and submissions. The direction is binding on solicitors and barristers appearing before the High Court and was issued by the President of the High Court under the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. It applies across all High Court matters, including commercial, judicial review, planning, and civil proceedings.

The direction requires that any generative AI output used to prepare or summarise a court document be subjected to review appropriate to the content and purpose of the output to ensure it meets quality standards before filing. The supervisory duty rests on the responsible legal practitioner, not the AI tool's developer. The direction does not cite a specific statutory provision beyond the practitioner's pre-existing duty of candour to the court, grounded in the court's inherent jurisdiction and the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015.

Solicitors and barristers who use large language models or AI-powered legal research tools in Irish High Court proceedings must establish internal review procedures for AI-generated content before filing any document. Law firms managing High Court litigation in Ireland must train fee earners on the new requirements and document their quality-assurance processes. In-house legal teams that retain external counsel for Irish High Court matters may wish to confirm in their engagement letters that counsel's AI review protocols meet the practice direction's standard.

Ireland enacted the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Act 2026 (No. 31 of 2026) to transpose the EU AI Act 2024/1689 into domestic law. The High Court practice direction operates independently of that statute and applies to all generative AI use in court documents, regardless of whether the AI system falls within the EU AI Act's risk classification categories. Courts in England and Wales, Singapore, and the United States federal system have issued analogous procedural directions, treating AI accuracy supervision as a matter of lawyer professional responsibility.

Licentium advises law firms and legal departments on AI governance, use policies, and court compliance requirements across Ireland, the UK, and other common law jurisdictions, coordinating with locally qualified counsel through our partner network. To discuss AI use policies for litigation teams or compliance with court practice directions, contact us. Work we undertake includes: AI use policies for legal practice, litigation AI governance, court filing compliance, professional responsibility and AI, and legal department AI strategy.

Source: Courts Service of Ireland, Responsible Use of Generative AI in Court Documents, High Court Practice Direction (2026)

More from the journal

See all
Illia Prokopiev

MLR Registration and the FCA Cryptoasset Gateway to 25 October 2027

This matter concerns the transition of a United Kingdom cryptoasset business from FCA registration under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 to Part 4A permission under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The question is whether MLR registration gives conversion, grandfathering, priority, or a right to continue after 25 October 2027, and what an affected firm should do before the gateway closes. This analysis assumes an existing UK-facing cryptoasset business, no relevant Part 4A permission, and an intention to continue after commencement.

Illia Prokopiev

ESMA's 2026 Custody Resilience CSA and the Rules That Actually Bind

ESMA’s 2026 Common Supervisory Action is a coordinated national review of digital operational resilience in crypto-asset custody. It will test whether selected crypto-asset service providers can demonstrate effective controls across six announced workstreams. The legal questions are which requirements are binding, how national competent authorities may assess control effectiveness, and what consequences may follow from a deficiency. This analysis assumes that the firm is permitted under MiCA Article 59 to provide custody and administration within Article 3(1)(17).

Illia Prokopiev

Stablecoin regulation in the US, Hong Kong and Singapore

Stablecoin and digital-token regulation now combines market-entry authorization with continuous financial-crime controls in daily operations. The question is whether the United States’ proposed payment-stablecoin customer identification program, Hong Kong’s narrow first licensing round, and Singapore’s digital payment token (DPT) directory support a bank-like compliance characterization. They do, with material limits. The more accurate proposition is that compliance is moving beyond approval into continuous financial-institution-grade operations.