AI Regulation Tracker / Court directive
Qatar's QICDRC requires lawyers to verify and, on request, disclose AI-generated court filings
The Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre now requires legal representatives to independently verify AI-generated material and, when the court asks, to identify which parts of a filing were prepared with AI. Responsibility for errors cannot be shifted to the tool.
The Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre has issued Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026, together with accompanying Practice Guidance, governing how artificial intelligence may be used in proceedings before the Qatar Financial Centre Civil and Commercial Court and the QFC Regulatory Tribunal. The court published the instrument on January 6, 2026. It sets out what lawyers and litigants must do when they use AI tools to prepare submissions, and it makes clear that the person signing a filing, not the software, carries responsibility for what it contains.
What the direction requires
The central obligation is verification. Under the Practice Guidance, 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. Parties are expected to check AI-generated content independently against authoritative primary sources before it goes to the court. The framework states that legal representatives remain fully responsible for the accuracy, validity, and integrity of all documents and submissions presented to the court, whether or not AI helped produce them. Responsibility for errors or misconduct cannot be delegated to an AI system.
A second requirement concerns confidentiality. Legal representatives are, in the court's words, expressly prohibited from inputting confidential, privileged, or legally protected information into publicly available AI tools. The guidance contemplates the use of private, secure AI platforms as an alternative, but treats the exposure of protected material through public tools as a breach that can attract disciplinary sanctions. For expert witnesses and their instructing lawyers, that limit reaches evidence preparation as well as pleadings, since case files, draft reports, and client data can all constitute protected information once entered into a public model.
Disclosure is on request, not automatic
The direction does not require blanket, up-front disclosure of AI use. That distinction matters for practitioners planning their workflow. Prior disclosure is not mandatory unless the court expressly requires it. When the court does ask, however, the lawyer who used the tools must identify the portions of submissions prepared with the assistance of AI and explain the steps taken to verify their accuracy. In practice this means counsel should keep a contemporaneous record of where AI was used and how each output was checked, because that record may have to be produced on short notice.
What happens if the rules are ignored
The court has given itself broad remedial authority. It may exclude, disregard, or otherwise refuse to rely on AI-generated content that is misleading, inaccurate, or improperly produced, in whole or in part. Beyond disregarding material, the consequences described include adverse costs orders, referral to professional regulators, and contempt of court proceedings where appropriate. The framing places the risk squarely on the representative who files unverified material, not on the client alone.
What it does not do
The direction does not ban AI from litigation work, and it does not require lawyers to avoid these tools. It permits their use while attaching duties of care around them. It also does not, on its own terms, reach beyond the QFC courts and the Regulatory Tribunal that the QICDRC administers, so it is not a general rule for all Qatari courts. And because disclosure is triggered by a court request rather than imposed automatically, the immediate compliance weight falls on verification and record-keeping rather than on routine reporting.
Why a foreign practitioner should care
The QFC courts hear commercial and financial disputes with a strong international dimension, and their bar includes counsel from firms based well outside Qatar. A US or European litigator who appears before the QICDRC, or who advises a client that may, is now bound by these duties for that work. The direction also adds to a growing set of court rules, from England and Wales to several US federal judges, that treat unverified AI output as the filing lawyer's problem. For firms writing internal AI-use policies, the QICDRC text offers a concrete template of what a court expects: verify against primary sources, protect privileged data, keep a record, and be ready to explain the AI's role when asked.
The practical takeaway is consistent across these regimes. The tool can draft, but the lawyer must check, and the court will hold the lawyer to that.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did the QICDRC change?
It issued Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 and accompanying Practice Guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in proceedings before the QFC Civil and Commercial Court and the QFC Regulatory Tribunal. The instrument, published January 6, 2026, requires independent verification of AI-generated content, bars putting privileged information into public AI tools, keeps full responsibility with the lawyer, and requires disclosure of AI use when the court asks.
Who is affected?
Legal representatives and litigants appearing before the QFC courts and the Regulatory Tribunal, including litigators, arbitration and dispute counsel, in-house teams, and expert witnesses who prepare filings or evidence. It applies to foreign-qualified lawyers doing that work, not only Qatar-based practitioners.
Do I have to disclose that I used AI on every filing?
No. Disclosure is not mandatory unless the court expressly requires it. If the court asks, you must identify which portions of the submission were prepared with AI assistance and explain the steps you took to verify their accuracy, so keeping a verification record is essential.
What can the court do if AI-generated material is wrong?
It can exclude or disregard the affected material in whole or in part, make adverse costs orders, refer the lawyer to professional regulators, and, where appropriate, bring contempt of court proceedings. Responsibility rests with the filing representative, not the AI tool.
Does this apply to all courts in Qatar?
No. On its own terms the direction governs proceedings before the QFC Civil and Commercial Court and the QFC Regulatory Tribunal administered by the QICDRC. It is not a general rule for every Qatari court, though it may influence practice more broadly.
Sponsored Training
Browse the full AI Regulation News tracker
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any rule applies to your situation with qualified counsel.