By Alaina Reid – BeyondLegal & DataPro Consulting Limited
Artificial intelligence has now been called to the Bar — but only under strict supervision. With the Supreme Court’s Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025, Jamaica has become one of the first Caribbean countries to implement rules on the use of generative AI in court. The Practice Direction recognizes that generative AI can be a useful legal assistant, provided it doesn’t step into the realm of fiction or folly. This direction acknowledges what most lawyers already know (and some secretly fear): AI is no longer the future of law — it’s the present, and it’s typing faster than we are.
AI in Chambers: Not the Villain, Just a Poorly Supervised Intern
Much like the Caribbean Court of Justice’s own directive earlier this year, the Supreme Court’s approach doesn’t ban AI. Instead, it sets some much-needed ground rules. Think of it as a polite but firm “don’t embarrass us in court” memo. The directive makes clear that if you use generative AI to help draft your submissions, you — the human lawyer — are still the adult in the room. You must review, verify, and fact-check every word before it goes anywhere near the court record.
AI, after all, is the world’s most confident liar. It can produce stunningly persuasive nonsense — what the tech folks call “hallucinations” and these hallucinations can land a lawyer in very real trouble. It’s worth noting that the region has already seen its fair share of courtroom drama—not from clients this time, but from counsel—after a few lawyers, armed with AI, cited cases that did not exist. These lawyers have faced disciplinary hearings. A lawyer’s first duty is to the court and must carry out that duty with honesty and integrity. The use of fake cases generated by AI is tantamount to misleading the court. Therefore, due diligence is still very much required though AI makes the preparation process quicker and easier.
The Jamaican Court’s AI Rules in Plain English
Here’s the short version of what the new Practice Direction says:
- You can use AI – but only responsibly, securely, and transparently.
- You must verify everything – No made-up cases, no mystery citations, no AI said so.
- You must disclose that AI helped prepare a document. (Yes, there’s even a form for that).
- You must not use AI to write or alter affidavits, witness statements, or evidence — basically, anything pretending to reflect human knowledge or belief.
- You can be sanctioned — even found in contempt — if you let AI embarrass you or the court.
In short: AI can help you draft, but it can’t help you think.
What This Means for the Caribbean Legal Ecosystem
This isn’t just about Jamaica catching up with the CCJ. It’s part of a broader regional movement to modernize the justice system without surrendering to automation.
The judiciary’s embrace of AI is a good thing — it’s pragmatic, not paranoid. The technology can democratize access to justice, especially for self-represented litigants who struggle to research or write submissions. But as both Practice Directions emphasize, AI must be a tool, not a truth-teller.
Used ethically, AI can speed up research, summarize long judgments, and help lawyers draft with clarity. Used blindly, it can conjure citations out of thin air and leave you explaining why your “case authority” doesn’t exist.
Human Verification Is the New Due Diligence
The heart of both the CCJ and Jamaican directives is simple – don’t abdicate your human judgment. Lawyers have always relied on clerks, paralegals, and junior associates — and now, AI is just the latest (and fastest) member of the team but unlike your human staff, it has no moral compass, no legal training, and no concept of consequences. AI operates without an ethical anchor unless it’s guided by the accumulated influences of written history (a debate worthy of its own article)! After all, the challenge isn’t that AI might replace human reasoning — it’s that we might forget to use it.
So, Should We Ban It? Absolutely Not
To ban AI from the courtroom would be like banning calculators because one accountant misadded a column. The solution isn’t prohibition — it’s professionalism. If the legal fraternity embraces AI with discipline and humility, it can improve efficiency, accessibility, and maybe even our sanity. Imagine faster judgments, streamlined filings, and fewer sleepless nights with the Civil Procedure Rules. But the ultimate safeguard remains what it has always been: the human mind — skeptical, critical, and ethically anchored.
Final Word
The Supreme Court’s Practice Direction isn’t the death of creativity; it’s a call to responsibility.
AI can draft your brief, but only you can defend it. So yes, let’s use AI in our courts — but let’s keep our hands on the wheel. Because in law, as in life, automation without accountability isn’t innovation — it’s chaos.
