Does the QICDRC allow lawyers to use AI?

Yes. Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 states at paragraph 4 that the use of artificial intelligence is to be welcomed in litigation in the QFC Court and the Regulatory Tribunal, for its potential to reduce cost and promote greater effectiveness. It regulates use rather than prohibiting it.

Do I have to declare that I used AI in a QFC Court filing?

Not pre-emptively. Paragraph 24 says a pre-emptive declaration is not required unless the Court specifically asks for it. But paragraph 26 requires Court Users to be prepared to identify which portions of a document used AI-generated content and to explain how they verified the output, and the Court may require an explanation or an affidavit.

Can I put privileged material into an AI tool under the Qatar practice direction?

No, unless the platform is private and secure. Paragraph 12 states that confidential, privileged or protected information must not be entered into AI tools, except where private, secure AI platforms are used. Paragraph 13 encourages disabling chat history or using privacy-protective settings.

What happens if AI-fabricated citations reach the QFC Court?

Paragraph 17 says the Court and the Regulatory Tribunal will disregard submissions containing fictitious cases, legislation or factual assertions outside the evidence, and may take further action. Paragraph 27 lists the consequences: disregarding affected pleadings or evidence in whole or in part, adverse costs orders, referral to professional regulators, and contempt of court proceedings where appropriate.

When did the Qatar AI practice direction come into force?

It is dated 6 January 2026 and was issued by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President of the Qatar International Court, and Sir William Blair, Chairman of the QFC Regulatory Tribunal.

AI rules for lawyers, by country · Qatar · Middle East

Qatar: the QICDRC practice direction on artificial intelligence

Practice Direction No. 1 of 2026 on the Use of Artificial Intelligence · QFC Civil and Commercial Court and QFC Regulatory Tribunal · 6 January 2026

Page verified 5 August 2026. All 27 paragraphs read at source. Quotations are from the practice direction itself, linked below.

The best-drafted court AI instrument anywhere, and almost nobody outside the Gulf has read it. It runs to 27 numbered paragraphs, it is signed by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, formerly Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and it covers ground no American or European instrument reaches: evidence fabrication, eBundles, deepfakes and privileged data, each in its own section.

Who it binds

It is issued under articles 38.2 and 26.2 of the Rules and Procedures of the QFC Civil and Commercial Court and the QFC Regulatory Tribunal respectively, and applies to “litigants, their legal representatives, and any legal practitioners who appear” before either body. The practice direction calls them Court Users, a defined term that reaches self-represented parties and foreign counsel alike.

If you are an international firm with a Qatar Financial Centre practice, or you advise on QFC-governed contracts, this binds your filings today.

It welcomes AI. Read that first.

“The use of Artificial Intelligence is to be welcomed in litigation in the QFC Court and RT with its potential to reduce cost and promote greater effectiveness.” — paragraph 4

That sentence carries a footnote to Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (E) 3 at paragraph 19, so the permissive stance is grounded in the court’s own case law rather than asserted. Paragraph 5 then closes the obvious loophole: nothing in the direction “alters, diminishes, or replaces a Court User’s existing ethical, professional, or legal duties, all of which continue to apply in full when using AI.”

The seven duties, by paragraph

7, 8Accuracy. Court Users remain responsible for the accuracy and reliability of what they submit. “It is a breach of duty to mislead the Court or submit materials containing fabricated or unverifiable legal citations.”
9, 10Know the failure modes. AI tools may generate false citations or misstate the law, and, uniquely on this record, “do not reliably distinguish between jurisdictions and may refer to irrelevant foreign legal principles.” No other court has named cross-jurisdictional contamination as a risk.
11Witness evidence. Court Users must not rely solely on AI output when drafting witness evidence. All AI-generated material must be verified before use.
12, 13, 14Confidentiality. “Confidential, privileged, or protected information must not be entered into AI tools, except where private, secure AI platforms are used.” Disabling chat history and using privacy-protective settings is encouraged. Breach may itself draw sanctions.
15, 16, 17Verification. All citations must be checked “against primary sources or recognised legal databases.” The Court will disregard submissions containing fictitious cases, legislation or factual assertions outside the evidence.
18Evidence. “AI tools must not be used to generate evidence. It is prohibited to ask AI to fabricate or tamper with evidence.” A flat prohibition, not a verification duty.
19, 20, 21eBundles. If AI is used to create or organise eBundles, the party must ensure correct indexing, pagination and relevance, conforming to Chapter 16 of the Maroon Book. Responsibility stays with the submitting party.

Deepfakes, and the disclosure rule

Paragraphs 22 and 23 do what the Federal Rules of Evidence in the United States have so far failed to do, in two sentences. Where visual or audio evidence is generated or enhanced using multimedia AI, the submitting Court User must clearly disclose the use and source of the technology. Any submission suspected of being a deepfake or manipulated without disclosure “may be excluded and investigated.”

Set that against the United States, where proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 was returned for further study in June 2026 and the deepfakes question with it. Qatar has had a rule since January.

On disclosure of AI use generally, the direction is deliberately calibrated:

24Pre-emptive declaration of AI use is not required unless the Court asks.
25The Court may decide that fairness or procedural good faith requires disclosure to other parties or to the Court.
26“Court Users must be prepared to identify portions of documents that used AI-generated content and explain how they verified the output. The Court may require an explanation or an affidavit.”

Paragraph 26 is the whole page in one sentence. You need not announce anything. You must be able to produce it on demand, on affidavit.

What misuse costs

Paragraph 27 lists four consequences, in escalating order: disregarding the affected pleadings or evidence in part or in whole; adverse costs orders; referral to professional regulators; and contempt of court proceedings where appropriate.

The first is the one to notice. Every other jurisdiction on this record punishes the lawyer. Qatar starts by discarding the client’s pleading, which is closer to Connecticut’s nonsuit than to an American fine.

What to do about it

Seven days free, then $349 a month. Or run it across the estate.

Paragraph 26 asks for two named items on affidavit: which portions used AI, and how you verified the output. Paragraph 12 means the record has to be made somewhere the privileged material never leaves. The same engine either way: a signed record made on your own machine, content-free, and checkable free by anyone, forever.

Start the free week Or Regulayer for enterprise →

Sources

Practice Direction on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (No. 1 of 2026), QICDRC PDF, read in full
QICDRC, Legislation, Regulations and Procedures
Court announcement, January 2026
Cited within: Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (E) 3 at [19]
An accompanying Practice Guidance is referred to in the announcement. We have not located its text and do not describe it.

AI rules for lawyers, country by country
Singapore, the other commercial-hub instrument
Privilege and AI, which paragraph 12 speaks to directly
Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Checked 5 August 2026 against the court’s own PDF, all 27 paragraphs. Information, not legal advice, and not advice on QFC practice.

Information, not legal advice, and not advice on the law of any jurisdiction. Every entry is verified against the issuing body’s own document; where a source is reporting rather than the document, we say so.

The other jurisdictions we have read in full

Each one read at the issuing body’s own document, not at a summary of it. All twenty-one, including the ones with no rule at all.

AustraliaNSW Practice Note SC Gen 23
England and WalesJudicial AI guidance, and Ayinde
EuropeThe AI Act, the CCBE guides, Germany
SingaporeMinistry of Law guide to generative AI