The QICDRC Practice Direction on the Use of Artificial Intelligence

A judge in a recent US case wrote, "the practice of law is not just a job, it is a profession; a profession with standards and ethical responsibilities." With the use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) becoming the norm in a lawyer’s professional life, those standards and ethical responsibilities face renewed scrutiny.

The application and use of AI is becoming routine in arbitration and litigation, speeding document review, supporting legal research, and even assisting with drafting. But as the boundaries of acceptable use are negotiated in real time, one theme is clear: Arbitrators and litigants must actively manage their use of AI to protect the integrity and enforceability of their awards or judgments, and their reputation and careers!

The Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (the “Court”) is taking positive steps to ensure that the integrity of disputes within its jurisdiction is managed, and that lawyers and litigants are held accountable for stepping outside both ethical and legal boundaries.

So what is AI? It is a branch of computer science that creates systems capable of performing complex tasks typically requiring human intelligence, such as reasoning, learning, problem-solving, perception, and decision-making. It is a tool that is becoming increasingly used across all industries and professions to save time and money, but its use, if not carefully managed, can create serious legal problems for its users.

In Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (E) 3, a recent case before the Court, a lawyer cited ‘fake cases’ during the course of litigation as a result of using AI. This is not an uncommon set of facts, with many similar cases having been reported around the globe. The Court found that the lawyer in question was in contempt of court. The judgment concluded that the lawyer’s apology and the publication of the judgment were sufficient penalty to deter future conduct, even though a contempt of court had indeed been committed which entailed deliberately misleading the court.

Following on from this case, the Court has taken a proactive position, and released Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 on the Use of Artificial Intelligence. The key provisions from the Practice Direction are:

1. Litigants, legal representatives, and legal practitioners (“Court Users”) remain responsible for ensuring the accuracy and reliability of information submitted to the Court.
2. It is a breach of duty to mislead the Court of submit materials containing fabricated or unverifiable legal citations.
3. All material generated by AI tools must be verified before use.
4. Confidential, privileged, or protected information must not be entered into AI tools, except where private, secure AI platforms are used.
5. Court Users must review and verify the factual and legal accuracy of AI-generated material.
6. The Court will disregard submissions containing fictitious cases, legislation, or factual assertions outside the evidence, and may take further action.
7. Pre-emptive declaration of the use of AI is not required unless the Court specifically asks for it.
8. Inappropriate or misleading use of AI may lead to: (i) disregarding affected pleadings or evidence in whole or in part, (ii) adverse costs orders, (iii) referral to professional regulators, and/or (iv) contempt of court proceedings where appropriate.

The Practice Direction’s guidance should not be a concern for lawyers who use AI with diligence, as an assistive tool only, as part of a regulated platform, and with their client’s consent, but it is a timely and helpful reminder that it is the Court Users who are ultimately responsible for their work product, and the use of AI does not diminish this responsibility.

If you need any further information on this matter, or any related issue, please feel free to reach out to Matthew Williams, counsel at Crowell & Moring, at matwilliams@crowell.com or on +974 4453 2517.