AI in the courtroom: a useful tool or a risk to proceedings?

AI is popping up everywhere these days, and is therefore becoming increasingly common in legal practice too. That need not be a problem in itself. However, anyone who uses AI to draft a court document and then forgets to check whether the facts, legal reasoning and supporting evidence are accurate and complete may face serious consequences during the proceedings.

This is also evident from a recent ruling by the Limburg District Court. In this case, an employee sought payment of a transition payment following the termination of their employment contract. According to the subdistrict court judge, the application had been “clearly fabricated with the aid of AI”. The problem lay not in the use of AI itself, but in the way it had been handled: any sound factual and legal basis was entirely absent.

For instance, it was not clear how the employment contract had been terminated, whereas this is precisely what is relevant to the question of whether there is a right to a transition payment. A mere reference to Article 7:673 of the Dutch Civil Code was, according to the subdistrict court judge, simply not enough. The employee was given the opportunity to supplement his petition, but did not take advantage of it. The claim was ultimately dismissed in its entirety.

AI can produce legally convincing texts, but polished wording does not in itself constitute a sound litigation strategy. A legal document must be grounded in the specific facts, apply the correct legal framework and be supported by evidence. Anyone who uses AI without carefully making that translation runs the risk that a document which appears professional will, in substance, be of little merit.

For solicitors and other legal professionals, the lesson is therefore not that AI should be banned from litigation practice. On the contrary: it can be a valuable tool. But it is one that requires critical scrutiny. AI can assist with drafting, structuring and contributing ideas, but the legal responsibility remains with the human being.

Are you involved in an employment law dispute and would you like an assessment of whether your case is legally sound? Then please contact Dennis Oud, Tessa Sipkema, Elke Hofman-Bijvank or Noa Bilogrevic, rather than relying olely on a chatbot. AI is capable of a great deal, but expert legal advice remains a bespoke service.

You can read the judgement here.