In July 2026 the Disciplinary Court ('Raad van Discipline') in 's-Hertogenbosch reprimanded a Dutch lawyer. The most serious complaint: case law from an AI tool had gone into court documents unchecked, and the references were wrong. For AI and disciplinary law, no new rule was needed, only a familiar one: open and read every judgment you cite, even when AI found it.
In short
- The reprimand (ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93, 27 July 2026) followed a complaint by the dean of the local bar about two tenancy cases.
- One statement of defence cited eight judgments. One ECLI did not exist; the other seven belonged to entirely different judgments.
- The court applied the core values of competence and integrity and rule 8 of the Dutch rules of conduct. No new AI rules were needed.
- The reprimand rests on more than AI. The court also held other failures against the lawyer, such as not attending the hearing.
- The lesson: open every judgment via its ECLI and read the passage you rely on.
What did the disciplinary court decide in ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93?
At the end of 2025 the dean received a signal from the court: a lawyer appeared to have used AI carelessly. The dean requested the documents and filed a complaint of the dean's own motion (dekenbezwaar).
The matter concerned two tenancy cases. In both, the statement of defence contained case references that were wrong. According to the subdistrict court, the statement in one case cited eight judgments. One ECLI number did not exist. The other seven belonged to entirely different judgments, such as a divorce order and a criminal case. An ECLI is the unique identifier of a judgment in the European case law system.
The lawyer later withdrew the references by means of a correction deed. The court imposed a reprimand and ordered the lawyer to pay € 1,250 in costs.
What does disciplinary law say about AI-generated references?
The disciplinary court tests conduct against the core values in the Dutch Lawyers Act (Advocatenwet). Not every mistake is a breach, the court said. A single incorrect reference need not be one. Here, however, the lawyer had copied the case law from the AI tool wholesale, without checking the references or even reading the judgments.
According to the court, everyone involved in proceedings must be able to rely on cited case law existing and being correct. The finding: a breach of the core values of competence and integrity, and of rule 8. That rule prohibits giving information the lawyer knows or ought to know is incorrect. In the same matter the subdistrict court had already found a breach of Article 21 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure: the duty to state the facts fully and truthfully.
Three nuances belong with it:
| Point | What the court found |
|---|---|
| More than AI | Also an incorrect statement about the procedural rules, a wrongly invoked statutory provision, no defence against the alternative claim, and not attending the hearing |
| Confidentiality | That complaint was unfounded; a mere suspicion that confidential data had gone into the tool was not enough |
| Timing | The documents dated from July 2025. AI literacy was not yet common then and the NOvA recommendations did not yet exist. That counted in the lawyer's favour |
Which AI tool was used has not been established. The lawyer did not answer that question.
What do the NOvA recommendations ask about source verification?
Exactly what went wrong here. In December 2025 the NOvA, the Netherlands Bar Association, published its Recommendations on AI in legal practice. They are not a guideline and not a rule of conduct, but they do give direction. Under "Always verify the output" the NOvA says: check citations, case law and facts by hand before use. And: use only tools that cite their sources, so the output can be verified. Under integrity: never adopt AI output without checking it.
The court itself referred to the recommendations, as a reason for a lighter measure: they did not yet exist when the documents were written. For anyone working today, that argument falls away. How supervision and the recommendations fit together is explained in our overview of NOvA guidance on AI use in Dutch law firms.
How do you check a reference from an AI tool?
With a fixed checking step, before the document leaves the firm:
- Open the judgment yourself via its ECLI, on rechtspraak.nl or tuchtrecht.overheid.nl. An ECLI that does not open is not used.
- Compare the details. Do court, date and case number match what the AI answer says?
- Read the passage you rely on. Is the proposition really there, and in what context?
- Check whether the judgment still stands. Has there been an appeal or a cassation ruling?
- Check statutory provisions in the version in force on wetten.overheid.nl.
- Record who checked, especially if a colleague prepared the document.
- Repair a mistake at once and in full. In this case the lawyer withdrew the references, but did not support the defence again afterwards and did not attend the hearing. The court held that against the lawyer too.
Why language models invent judgments is explained in why AI invents Dutch case law.
How it works at Prudai
We build LEO, an AI assistant for lawyers. Part of the problem in this case is one LEO catches mechanically, with a clear limit.
A gate for ECLI numbers. In LEO's chat, a gate checks every answer for ECLI numbers. If an answer cites an ECLI that did not come from a source, a tool or your own documents in that conversation, the model must retrieve the judgment. If that fails, the answer is visibly marked "unverified".
The limit. The gate checks whether a judgment was retrieved, not whether it supports your argument. It does not check whether an existing ECLI belongs to the right judgment. It covers ECLIs, not statutory provisions, and it works in the chat. All seven steps above remain your job.
Sources. LEO works with more than 100 sources, including legislation and case law. For disciplinary law, LEO searches the decisions of the Dutch disciplinary tribunals live, including those for lawyers, notaries, healthcare and bailiffs.
What AI can and cannot take over in a bailiff's practice is covered in Which half of bailiff work can be automated?.
First a plan. A LEO workflow first presents a plan. In 67 of the 72 workflows, LEO then waits for your approval before the specialists start. You can approve, adjust or stop.
For the specialist
- Test. Article 46 of the Dutch Lawyers Act, with the core values in Article 10a (para. 5.1). The court is not bound by the rules of conduct, but they can be relevant.
- Core. Para. 5.5: not every mistake breaches the core value of competence. Para. 5.6: copying AI-generated case law wholesale breaches competence and integrity and rule 8.
- Other heads. Paras. 5.7 to 5.10. The confidentiality complaint is unfounded (para. 5.12).
- Measure. Article 48(2) of the Dutch Lawyers Act provides five measures: warning, reprimand, fine, suspension and striking off. The court found a warning too light (para. 6.1) and took the timing into account (para. 6.2).
- Procedure. The subdistrict court found a breach of Article 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but considered disregarding the entire defence too heavy a sanction for the client.
Frequently asked questions
Was the lawyer reprimanded because of ChatGPT?
That has not been established. The subdistrict court asked whether it was ChatGPT or another AI system, but that remained unknown. The disciplinary court got no answer to that question either. The complaint was about adopting AI output unchecked, whatever the tool.
Is a wrong ECLI always a disciplinary offence?
Not always. The court said a single incorrect reference is not automatically a breach. Here it was a way of working: many references, not checked and not read.
What should I do if I find a wrong AI reference?
Repair it at once, for example by filing a correction. Then support the argument again with case law you have actually read. Also make sure your client is properly assisted at the hearing.
Does the dean check my AI use?
No routine AI check during office visits has been announced. The dean does act on signals. This case started with a signal from the court.
Sources
- Disciplinary Court 's-Hertogenbosch, 27 July 2026, ECLI:NL:TADRSHE:2026:93 (in Dutch)
- NOvA, Aanbevelingen AI in de advocatuur (in Dutch; December 2025, consulted 2 October 2026)
- Dutch Lawyers Act (Advocatenwet) (in Dutch; version in force from 1 January 2026)
- Gedragsregels advocatuur 2018 (in Dutch)
- Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (in Dutch; Article 21)
Would you like to know how LEO retrieves judgments and flags an ECLI without a source? See legal research with LEO (in Dutch) and request a demo there.
Updated on 4 October 2026