What you need to know
- Guidance on AI use: The WRC, Labour Court and Civil Courts have all published guidance on the use of AI in preparing for litigation.
- WRC: The WRC makes it clear that each party must take full responsibility for the content of submissions, regardless of whether, and to what extent, AI has been used to draft them.
- Labour Court: While the Labour Court does not require the disclosure of the use of AI in preparing court documents, the guidance suggests disclosure as an option.
- Court of Appeal: The Court set out principles of general application regarding the use of AI in litigation. In particular, where AI has been used in a case, parties should expressly disclose this to the other parties and the court.
- Practical steps: Verification, governance and procedural discipline are all essential in complying with established AI guidelines and promoting best practice within an organisation.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools are a common part of everyday life, and litigation is no different. While AI can accelerate drafting, summarise records and surface authorities, it can also generate confident but often inaccurate text, hallucinate citations or mishandle personal data. Since late 2024, Irish Courts and tribunals have begun to set out their expectations for responsible use of AI tools in litigation. We review that guidance and offer practical pointers to employers in workplace disputes.
Court of Appeal
The Irish Court of Appeal case of Guerin v O’ Doherty[1] has set the ultimate benchmark when it comes to the use of AI in the preparation of court documents. In this matter, a lay litigant utilised an AI tool to assist in drafting submissions to support her appeal. Unfortunately, the case law cited by the AI tool were entirely fictitious. The Court noted that:
There were no such cases, and they were not authority for the propositions which they purported to establish. This is an inherent and well-known risk of using AI to write legal submissions.”
The lay litigant did not apparently verify the existence of the case law cited or that they actually supported the arguments she made. She also did not notify the solicitors for the other side that she had prepared her submissions using AI, which led to the needless expense of time and effort.
The Court emphasised the duty that all parties “whether represented or not” have to not mislead the Court. This includes the obligation “not to rely upon or advance submissions based upon “fake” authorities or propositions which have no basis in law.”
In order to assist parties in navigating proper procedure for the use of AI in their litigation, the Court set down the following guidelines:
- Parties are entitled to use AI to assist in carrying out research for their case provided that they do so responsibly and do not, even inadvertently, mislead the Court by advancing propositions or relying on supposed case law which in fact have no foundation at all and are simply hallucinations.
- In all cases where they do so, they should expressly inform both the other parties and the Court of their use of AI.
- A self-represented party is responsible for the ultimate written or oral work in their case just as much as the lawyers representing parties are.
- Any party who uses AI as part of their research must independently verify the accuracy of their submissions and the case law relied on to support the arguments made.
- A party should not rely on any authority unless they have checked that it is a genuine court judgment. They must also be satisfied that it supports, or at least may support, the argument being made.
The Court went on to note the “wasted time and costs” that can occur where a party uncritically provides submissions which seem to rely on cases that have not been verified. This puts an “unfair burden” on the other party when drafting their response or in preparing books of appeal. This practice also “potentially brings the administration of justice into disrepute and may result in misleading the court”. The Court stressed the variety of sanctions available to it where parties use AI in breach of the guidelines it provides and where the use of AI risks misleading the Court.
It is clear then, that at least in the Irish Civil Courts, there is a positive duty to expressly disclose the use of AI in the preparation of submissions. Failure to do so, the Court held, could be viewed as misleading the Court, which may trigger sanctions.
Workplace Relations Commission
In the recent highly publicised case of Fernando Oliveira v Ryanair DAC[2], an Adjudication Officer emphasised the duty that each party to Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) proceedings has to:
…ensure that their submissions are relevant and accurate and do not set out to mislead either the other party or the Adjudication Officer.”
The complainant in this case had used an AI tool to draft his submissions, leading to the inclusion of “citations that were not relevant, mis-quoted and in many instances, non-existent.”
The WRC has since drafted guidance on the use of AI tools in preparing written submissions or documents for use as evidence in employment and equality law cases. See our recent article:
WRC guidance on the use of AI to prepare submissions
Since last reporting, the WRC have updated their advice, “having regard to Guerin v O’ Doherty”. The new guidance states that a party “must not mislead the WRC by relying on incorrect, invented or unverified authorities, quotations or factual claims”.
While still keeping parties’ disclosure of the use of AI in generating submissions as optional, the WRC guidance emphasises that the user is “fully responsible for the content” they submit and that if legal information is found to be wrong or misleading, “it may harm your case.”
Labour Court
The Labour Court has also published guidance for litigants using AI in the preparation of submissions, for analysing documentation and organising arguments. While not prohibiting the use of AI, the Court emphasises that all parties “irrespective of representation”, are responsible for the accuracy, reliability and procedural compliance of any material generated by AI. The guidance document advises that any documentation prepared with the use of AI and submitted in a case should be checked/viewed. It also advises that all parties should be cautious if using AI for substantive work on a case.
The guidance also outlines the risks associated with using AI without human oversight including:
- The scope for hallucination
- Risks to confidentiality
- Risks to relevance and applicability of material generated
- Scope for biased or inaccurate information
As with the WRC guidelines, the Labour Court’s guidance document suggests that:
If AI is used in the preparation of any document/submission to the Court, the party may wish to reference its use. Parties may be asked to explain submissions made to the Court.”
The lack of prescriptive and imperative wording would suggest that disclosure is an optional step.
Practical tips for employers and HR professionals
Verification of sources: When preparing for litigation or disputes and using an AI tool to assist with research or drafting, it is crucial that an accuracy check is carried out on every authority relied on to ensure that it is real, Irish-law relevant and accurately quoted. Keep hyperlinks to primary sources or official repositories used for reference. AI-generated material must be verified before it is filed.
Governance of use: A written policy should be established for dispute-related AI use. This should:
- Specify the tools that are permitted to be used in these circumstances
- Regulate uploading personal data to public systems
- Require the administration of a privacy check with clients pre-use, and
- Set out redaction and anonymisation standards
Procedural adherence: Ensuring compliance with the guidelines specific to the venue in which litigation is conducted. Be aware of the mandatory disclosure requirement that the Court of Appeal has set out versus the optional disclosure that the WRC and Labour Court have suggested.
Confidentiality and data protection risks: Employers should be careful to not upload employee data to AI tools e.g. grievance documentation, medical information, investigation material, protected disclosures, settlement communications or commercially-sensitive documents. The Labour Court’s guidance identifies confidentiality as a specific risk of using AI without human oversight.
AI should not be used as a substitute for expert legal advice: While AI can assist with administrative or first-draft tasks, it should not be relied on as the final source of legal analysis, given the risk of misleading the court.
For specific advice as to how the publication of AI guidance will affect your business in a litigation context or otherwise, contact our Employment Law & Benefits team.
The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal or other advice.
[1] [2026] IECA 48.
[2] ADJ-00055225.