← All guidelines·Guideline 6 of 8
Any restriction on AI use imposed by the attorney, the client or the court is followed. Instructing attorneys are told, in general terms, how counsel uses AI.
Red · Must Orange · Should Proposed addition. The first part rests on an existing duty; the second is recommended practice.
Red · Must Respect restrictions
- Where the attorney or the client has said that AI may not be used on a matter, or on part of it, it is not used in that way unless the restriction is expressly changed.
- Any rule, practice directive or order of the court about AI use in that court is followed.
- Permission from an attorney or a client does not excuse misleading the court or breaching any other duty.
“treat the interests of their clients as paramount, provided that their conduct shall be subject always to: 3.3.1 their duty to the court; 3.3.2 the interests of justice; 3.3.3 observance of the law;”
LPC Code of Conduct, para 3.3
Orange · Should Tell the attorney how AI is used
A short general note to instructing attorneys is sufficient in most cases. Sensitive or unusual uses are raised specifically. A general note is not consent to put any client material into any tool.
Wording that can be adapted to a particular practice:
I use generative AI to assist with parts of my research, analysis and drafting. I remain responsible for the work, I check what I use, and I protect confidential material. Please let me know if your firm or the client has any restriction on its use in this matter.
Suggested wording, for discussion
The Bar already has a model for this. Under the GCB Uniform Rules it is not unethical to disclose to the attorney that a devil is or will be used, and, save with the attorney’s prior consent, the devil may not take an active part in the conduct of the case in court (rule 4.26.2).
No South African rule presently requires advocates to disclose AI use to a court as a matter of course. The rules and directives of the court concerned are checked; a number of courts abroad now require a declaration or a certificate.
Green · Method The checks
- A new attorney. The general note goes with the first brief.
- A restriction. It is recorded on the brief and followed.
- The court. Check for a practice directive on AI in that court.
- An unusual use. Raised with the attorney before the work starts.
Other jurisdictions
In England and Wales, a barrister must be transparent about the use of AI tools, especially if asked by the client, the court or the regulator, and if it materially affects the nature and scope of the service (Bar Standards Board, Guidance on the use of AI and other technologies, valid from 18 May 2026). The judicial guidance in that jurisdiction is that legal representatives are responsible for the material they put before the court and, provided AI is used responsibly, there is no reason why they ought to refer to its use (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, Artificial Intelligence (AI) guidance for judicial office holders, 31 October 2025). In New South Wales, an affidavit, witness statement or character reference must contain a disclosure that generative AI was not used in generating its content (Practice Note SC Gen 23, para 13). In New Zealand, a lawyer does not need to disclose the use of a generative AI chatbot as a matter of course, unless asked by the court or tribunal (Courts of New Zealand, Guidelines for use of generative AI in courts and tribunals: lawyers, 7 December 2023). The Federal Court of Canada, by contrast, requires a declaration where a document contains AI-generated content (Notice to the parties and the profession, 7 May 2024). The international comparison has the detail.
Sources on file: LPC Code of Conduct (GG 42337, 29 March 2019), para 3.3. GCB Uniform Rules of Professional Ethics (as updated July 2024), rule 4.26.2. Bar Standards Board, Guidance on the use of AI and other technologies (May 2026). Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, Artificial Intelligence (AI) guidance for judicial office holders (31 October 2025). Supreme Court of New South Wales, Practice Note SC Gen 23, para 13. Courts of New Zealand, Guidelines for use of generative AI in courts and tribunals: lawyers (7 December 2023). Federal Court of Canada, Notice to the parties and the profession: the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings (7 May 2024).
Status. A proposed guideline, put forward by Greg Fourie SC for discussion. It has not been adopted by the Legal Practice Council, the General Council of the Bar or any society of advocates. Read the Code and the judgments themselves before relying on them.