From the journal

Ireland High Court Issues Practice Direction HC142 Restricting GenAI Use in Documents, September 2026

The President of the Irish High Court issued Practice Direction HC142 on 29 July 2026, operative from 1 September 2026. All affidavits and witness statements filed in High Court civil proceedings after that date must carry a declaration confirming that generative AI was not used to generate their substantive content. Solicitors and barristers bear personal responsibility for the accuracy of all filed documents, and verifying AI output against a second AI tool does not satisfy the direction's requirements.

3 min read

On 29 July 2026, the President of the Irish High Court issued Practice Direction HC142 on the Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Documents, to take effect on 1 September 2026. HC142 applies to all civil proceedings before the High Court and covers documents prepared on or after the operative date, including documents filed in proceedings already underway at that date.

Practice Direction HC142 imposes two operative requirements. First, every affidavit and witness statement filed after 1 September 2026 must carry an express declaration that generative AI was not used to generate the substantive content of the document. The direction defines the prohibition broadly, extending it to AI use that alters, embellishes, strengthens, dilutes, or rephrases the evidence contained in the document. Purely administrative uses of AI, including document formatting and scheduling tasks, do not engage the declaration requirement. Second, any practitioner who uses generative AI in any capacity in preparing a court document must independently verify every claim, citation, and legal reference before filing. The direction states that checking AI-generated content against a second AI tool does not constitute adequate verification.

Solicitors, barristers, expert witnesses, and self-represented litigants before the High Court are all within scope. Solicitors bear personal professional responsibility for the accuracy of all filed documents regardless of who prepared the content; that responsibility cannot be transferred to an AI system or delegated to a junior who used one. Experts producing court reports must append the same substantive-content declaration as lay deponents. Non-compliance exposes practitioners to court sanctions, professional disciplinary proceedings, and costs orders.

HC142 was issued in direct response to the Court of Appeal judgment in Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48, in which the court noted a litigant's reliance on AI-generated material containing references to non-existent authorities. The direction warns that generative AI systems produce fictitious case citations, invented statutory provisions, factual errors, and biased summaries of genuine sources. No carve-out applies for AI systems marketed as legal research tools.

Licentium advises law firms, corporate legal teams, litigation funders, and expert witnesses on AI governance and responsible AI deployment in regulated professional environments. Work we undertake includes AI use policy drafting for law firms and regulated entities, compliance assessment under the EU AI Act, high-risk AI system classification, professional liability analysis for AI-assisted legal and expert work, and cross-border AI litigation risk assessment.

Source: Practice Direction HC142, Responsible Use of Generative AI in Court Documents, 29 July 2026 (McCann FitzGerald commentary)

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

Matched-Category Analysis of the Hong Kong Stablecoin Issuer Route and the Singapore Digital Payment Token Service Route

This matter concerns whether current licensing data supports a commercial comparison between Hong Kong’s stablecoin issuer route and Singapore’s digital payment token service route. The question is whether the proposition remains legally accurate as of 12 August 2026. “Commercially useful” is assumed to mean useful for selecting a market-entry and operating model, not proof that either regulator is more permissive.

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).