CCJ Practice Direction on Use of GenAI Tools in Court Proceedings
- February 28, 2025
- Posted by: Altus Regional Team
- Category: General
The Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) has given a nod to the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools— but with limitations. In its recently issued Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025, the CCJ set out comprehensive guidelines on using GenAI tools in court proceedings. This landmark directive aims to ensure the ethical and responsible use of AI technologies within the legal framework, thereby safeguarding the integrity of judicial processes.
Understanding Generative AI
Generative AI refers to advanced artificial intelligence systems capable of producing new content, including text, images, video, or audio, in response to prompts. These systems, which range from generic large language models to bespoke programs tailored for legal professionals, have the potential to revolutionize various aspects of legal practice. Examples of GenAI systems include ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and Lexis+ AI. Unlike traditional AI, which typically follows set rules, generative AI uses advanced models like neural networks to generate original and creative outputs. These models are trained on vast amounts of data and can produce content that closely resembles human-created work, making them valuable for various applications, including writing, conducting research and generating images.
Key Provisions of the Practice Direction
Prohibited Uses:
The use of GenAI is strictly prohibited in generating the content of affidavits, witness statements, or any material intended to reflect the evidence or opinion of a deponent or witness. Such documents must solely reflect a person’s knowledge and must not include AI-generated content. Additionally, GenAI cannot be used to alter, embellish, strengthen, dilute, or rephrase such evidence of a witness or deponent.
Permissible Uses:
GenAI tools may be used for the preparation of court documents, provided users comply with the Practice Direction and relevant legislation, rules, and ethical obligations. Attorneys and legal practitioners can utilize GenAI to draft submissions, summarize legal arguments, or conduct basic research, but must thoroughly fact-check and review outputs for accuracy and compliance with legal standards. Self-represented persons may also use GenAI tools to prepare submissions and familiarize themselves with legal principles, but as with lawyers and legal practitioners, self-represented persons bear the responsibility of verifying the accuracy and appropriateness of such material.
Responsibilities and Verification:
Court users who employ GenAI tools assume full responsibility for the accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness of the outputs incorporated into court documents. Outputs generated by GenAI tools must be checked against authoritative legal texts, case law, or statutes. Users may be required to demonstrate how such verifications were conducted.
Confidentiality and Security:
Court users must avoid inputting sensitive, confidential, or privileged information into open-source GenAI tools to prevent unintentional disclosure. The use of secure platforms adhering to established ethical standards is recommended for processing private information.
Disclosure Requirements:
The court may require users to disclose whether a GenAI tool was employed in the preparation of any document or evidence. Users should be prepared to identify specific portions influenced by GenAI and explain the steps taken to ensure accuracy.
Penalties for Non-Compliance:
Failure to adhere to the Practice Direction may result in cost orders being imposed against the non-compliant party. Additionally, improperly prepared documents or submissions may be rejected or assigned reduced evidentiary weight.
Analysis of the CCJ's Practice Direction
The CCJ’s Practice Direction on the use of GenAI tools in court proceedings signals a transformative moment for the legal profession. This directive acknowledges the increasing reliance on advanced AI technologies while underscoring the need for stringent ethical guidelines to maintain the highest standards of integrity and professionalism.
Prohibitions on Using GenAI Tools in Court Proceedings
The prohibition of AI-generated content in affidavits and witness statements highlights the Court’s commitment to maintaining the authenticity and integrity of witness testimony. Affidavits and witness statements are critical pieces of evidence in legal proceedings. Ethical and legal standards require affidavits and witness statements to be prepared by the individuals themselves or with minimal assistance. Using GenAI tools could compromise the genuine nature of these documents, as they are intended to be personal accounts and testimonies. This careful delineation by the CCJ ensures that individuals remain fully accountable for the content and accuracy of their evidence.
Requirements to Fact-Check and Verify AI-Generated Content
The CCJ’s emphasis on the responsibility of court users to verify AI-generated outputs introduces a new layer of accountability within the legal profession. While GenAI tools can quickly generate content such as legal submissions and legal analysis, these systems are not infallible. AI-generated content may inadvertently include biased, unethical, or legally non-compliant information. Furthermore, GenAI tools lack contextual understanding and may misrepresent facts or legal positions. Legal proceedings require precise and trustworthy information, and human oversight is essential to verify that AI-generated content meets these standards. The court’s requirement to independently verify AI-generated citations and references ensures the maintenance of strict legal standards, promoting attention to detail, due diligence, and accuracy.
Restrictions on Inputting Information into Open Source GenAI Tools
The directive’s restriction on inputting sensitive, confidential, or privileged information into open-source GenAI tools addresses critical issues surrounding data privacy and security. Open-source GenAI tools often operate on public or semi-public platforms, which may not have robust security measures in place to protect sensitive data. Users of open-source GenAI tools have limited control over how their data is processed, stored, and shared. These tools may retain user inputs for training purposes or other uses, which can lead to the inadvertent dissemination of sensitive information. As such, inputting confidential information into these tools can lead to unintended exposure, making it accessible to unauthorized parties. Inputting client information into open source AI tools may be a breach of attorney client privilege. Moreover, open-source platforms are more susceptible to cyberattacks and data breaches due to their public nature. By mandating the use of secure platforms, the CCJ is upholds the confidentiality of legal proceedings and obligates the responsible use of GenAI tools in court proceedings.
The Future of GenAI Tools in Court Proceedings
Overall, the CCJ’s guidance on the use of GenAI tools in court proceedings represents a forward-thinking approach that balances technological advancement with ethical imperatives, setting a benchmark for judicial systems worldwide. By prioritizing integrity and accountability, the Practice Direction ensures that the application of GenAI in legal proceedings upholds the highest standards of justice and professionalism. This directive also serves to demonstrate that while AI can significantly enhance legal work, it is intended to supplement, not replace, the human element crucial to the administration of justice.
