CLA News / Establishing Best Practice: How the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos Islands Are Shaping Authoritative Guidance on Generative AI in Court Proceedings by Khaliq Martin
Introduction
On 5th November 2025, the Supreme Court of the Bahamas issued Practice Direction No.3 of 2025[1] to provide court users with a guide on the use of generative AI in court proceedings. The guidance follows the judgment handed down on August 1, 2025 in the Matter of The Estate of Renate Grueesser, which is now considered to be the first reported case in The Bahamas of an attorney using AI hallucinated cases in court, and the second reported case in the Caribbean region[2].
The matter concerned a contentious probate proceeding where the claimants challenged the testamentary capacity of the deceased. The respondents filed an application to strike out the claimant’s statement of case due to procedural irregularities, and in response, the claimants argued, inter alia, that the respondents relied upon cases which did not exist. Counsel for the respondents admitted that they relied on their assistant’s legal research for their oral submissions which included cases hallucinated by ChatGPT.[3] Where the court inquired about counsel’s use of the GenAI tool, counsel boldly claimed that “there is no restriction on the use of ChatGPT”.[4] The court held that despite there being no explicit legal or ethical restriction on the use of GenAI, Counsel failed in their duty to uphold the administration of justice and to not mislead the court by failing to confirm the veracity of the legal authorities they sought to rely upon.[5] The court affirmed that this failure risked compromising the integrity of the judicial process, can amount to a serious breach of professional responsibility and/or contempt of court, and referred Counsel for the respondent to the Bahamas Bar Association’s Ethics Committee.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Bahamian judiciary has now provided a practice direction which does provide an overt compliance requirement for all court users who intend on using AI-Assisted material to disclose their use of a GenAI tool.
Practice Direction(s) on the Use of GenAI in Court Proceedings
The procedural guidance contained in the practice direction is inspired in large part by the “Guide to the Use of Generative AI in Court Proceedings (Practice Direction 1 of 2025),[6] issued by the Judiciary of the Turks and Caicos Islands (“TCI”) on 4th August, 2025.
Both practice directions contain guiding principles for court users when considering the use of GenAI. Namely, that court users bear the responsibility of confirming the accuracy of any material advanced before the court. Court users in this context referring to judicial officeholders and court staff, attorneys, and unrepresented litigants.[7] The guidance on GenAI in court proceedings notes that:
- judicial officers may use gen AI to draft documents, summarise information, and draft decisions;[8]
- any use of AI in written submissions must include a note in the body of the skeleton affirming that the citations and authorities have been verified;[9]
- expert reports shall not be prepared or drafted with AI without prior leave of the court;[10]
- use of any GenAI tool in whole or in part by an attorney or unrepresented litigant must be certified through a Certificate of Use form acknowledging how it has been deployed;[11]
- court users are cautioned not to use sensitive or confidential information in open-source and unsecured AI platforms[12];
Any failure to adhere to the Practice direction can result in sanctions ranging from submissions being struck, documents being inadmissible, and adverse costs. Further, legal practitioners risk facing contempt of court proceedings and being referred to their respective Bar Association and/or regulatory disciplinary committee.
Both practice directions take the guidance a step further with the inclusion of a classification table of the different categories of work that can be AI-Assisted, and where their use is generally permitted, permitted with disclosure, permitted with verification, or where leave is required. Different categories of potential use-cases include the drafting of case summaries, the creation of chronologies, legal research, annexures to affidavits and witness statements, expert reports (with caveats), and citations in skeleton arguments.
Unlike The Bahamas, the TCI practice direction explicitly states that GenAI shall not be used for drafting affidavits or witness statements to ensure such written evidence is the personal recollection of whoever intends to adduce it.[13]
Further, the TCI guidance includes predictive analysis as an acceptable use-case in providing outputs on predicting case outcomes, while The Bahamas does not. This departure signals an abundance of caution with respect to the risks associated in the use of predictive analysis tools as a means for, inter alia, litigation strategy and predicting case outcomes.
The position taken by the judiciary in The Bahamas and TCI signposts a prescriptive approach which acknowledges that the use of GenAI tools in court proceedings will undoubtedly increase, and encourages its continued use even among judicial officers. However, responsibility ultimately lies on the court user to ensure its use falls within the guiding principles.
Practical considerations in the deployment of GenAI in proceedings
The approach taken by the judiciary in The Bahamas and TCI acknowledges the inevitable increase of AI-assisted material being relied upon in court proceedings. Both jurisdictions strike a balance with authoritative guidance that defines clear expectations and acceptable parameters where practitioners can engage thoughtfully with GenAI. Legal practitioners within these jurisdictions are thus poised to leverage the opportunities to follow in the exploration of efficient GenAI productivity tools and legal tech products.
However, this article advances several considerations to be made by firms and practitioners alike when exploring the adoption of new and innovative legal tech tools. Practical considerations to be undertaken include:
- audits conducted by law firms of any current use of GenAI tools among their practitioners and legal assistants;
- limiting exploration and experimentation of GenAI to closed-source tools, preferably an enterprise-grade AI product;
- restricting the application of GenAI tools to administrative and/or procedural applications;
- refraining from using confidential, sensitive, and/or privileged information as data inputs;
- proactively seeking confirmation from clients as to whether any aspect of the evidence they seek to proffer in court proceedings has been generated with AI, and doing so continuously from the commencement of instructions; and
- developing and maintaining an internal policy regarding AI-assisted tools to be periodically reviewed.
These considerations provide for a structured means of planning for the strategic use and development of a legal practice capable of leveraging the opportunities present in emerging legal tech tools in a safe and compliant manner.
Finally, this article notes the growth in local Caribbean AI startups seeking to develop legal tech products to market in the Caribbean region. It is essential to ensure that any such tools are designed with procedural compliance as a priority, thereby encouraging broader user adoption of potentially beneficial legal tech solutions.
Conclusion
In sum, the Caribbean region and the judicial systems in several Caribbean jurisdictions are leading in their approaches to the use of generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) in court proceedings.[14] Procedural guidance issued in the form of practice directions provide for clear expectations for various court users on the use of GenAI, and the consequences for non-compliance.
GenAI tools are no replacement for the outputs derived from informed and prudent legal judgement. Maintaining a competent standard in knowledge, skills, and advocacy requires legal practitioners to maintain both critical analysis and academic rigour. In doing so, practitioners prepare themselves to arrive at well-reasoned opinions and arguments as they contend with complex legal issues. However, the prospect for improving access to justice, efficiency, and reducing costs often associated with protracted litigation, are well worth the exploration of new and innovative GenAI tools. The procedural frameworks established in jurisdictions such as The Bahamas and TCI create favourable conditions for legal professionals to examine their respective use-cases in greater depth.
Author: Khaliq Martin
Designation: Counsel & Attorney of the Supreme Court of The Bahamas
Email: Khaliq_martin@hotmail.ca
Country: The Bahamas
© Khaliq Martin
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The Supreme Court of The Bahamas, Practice Direction No. 3 of 2025, A Guide To Th e Use of Generative AI In Court Proceedings, (courts.bs, 5th November 2025) <https://courts.bs/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Practice-Direction-3-of-2025.pdf > accessed January 13th 2026
[2] The first reported case in the Caribbean is that of Nexgen Pathology Services Ltd v Darceuil Duncan (2025) CV2023-0439, in the republic of Trinidad and Tobago, 30th April 2025.
[3] 2023/PRO/cpr/00006
[4] Ibid [34]
[5] Ibid [33]-[34]
[6] Supreme Court of Turks and Caicos Islands, Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025, A Guide to the Use of Generative AI in Court Proceedings (tcilii.org, 4 August 2025) <https://tcilii.org/akn/tc/act/practice-direction/2025/1/eng@2025-08-04> accessed January 13th 2026
[7] SCB (n 1) 2 and SC TCI (n 6) 2
[8] ibid s 7(1)
[9] ibid s10(1)-(2)
[10] ibid s 11
[11] ibid s 12
[12] SCB (n 1) s 8(2)
[13] SC TCI (n 6) s 7(6)
[14] Throughout the Caribbean different judicial systems are publishing their own guidance on GenAI in legal proceedings. Such as Practice Direction No.1 of 2025: The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence tools, issued by the Caribbean Court of Justice on 14th February, 2025, and “Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025 – Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings”, issued by the Jamaican judiciary on the 17th September, 2025. Both of which are slightly less prescriptive in the permitted use-cases for litigants and judicial officeholders in contrast to that of the Bahamas and TCI.
