// wiki · practice review · September 2026

AI in judicial decisions

Draft article. The restatements of positions are analytical; case statuses change — verify the texts in the court registers.

The short answer

In 2025–2026 the courts answered the main questions. For a text prepared by AI, the person who signed it answers. A party was obliged to inform the court about the use of AI in documents. And a standalone “opinion of a neural network” is not evidence. The practice is small, but the direction is unambiguous: AI is a preparation instrument; the procedural form stays with the human.

Who answers for an AI text

In case No. А27-7831/2025 a circuit arbitrazh court imposed a 50,000-rouble fine under part 5 of Article 119 of the Arbitrazh Procedure Code for references to non-existent practice selected by an AI service. The Court for Intellectual Rights in case No. А71-11377/2025 extended the same approach to a legal reference system with AI search: the familiarity of the tool does not shift liability to the developer. The common denominator is part 2 of Article 9 of the APC: the risk of the consequences of procedural actions is borne by the person who takes them.

Disclosure of AI use

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF No. 15 of 21.05.2026 (para. 42) obliged a party to inform the court about the use of AI in preparing documents. The reliability of such information is assessed under the general rules of the burden of proof (Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Code): there is no special regime for AI materials — the party answers for what it submits.

An AI opinion as evidence

In case No. 22-1201/2026 (Sverdlovsk Regional Court, appeal, 21.05.2026) the defence of a convicted person prepared an “analytical opinion” — an analysis of the prosecution's evidence with the DeepSeek system — and asked to attach it to the case. The collegium held the refusal to attach it lawful: Article 74 of the Criminal Procedure Code lists the types of evidence exhaustively, and a generated document is not among them. The logic of the decision matters: where special knowledge is required, the court appoints an expert examination or invites a specialist (Articles 58, 80 of the CrPC); where it is not required, it assesses the circumstances itself; there is no separate place for “neural network analytics” between these regimes.

Opinions composed with the help of artificial intelligence are not evidence under Article 74 of the CrPC — the refusal to attach them is lawful.The essence of the position — case No. 22-1201/2026

AI in rights disputes

The third block of practice is the generations themselves as the subject of disputes: No. 02-4220/2025 — without a human's creative contribution generations are not protected (details); No. 02-1545/2026 — uploading materials to a public AI service was recognised as disclosure of a trade secret (the note). The full review of all six cases — in the knowledge base.

What a party should do

• verify every fact, norm and case from an AI draft — the verification protocol from the academy wiki;
• disclose the use of AI in procedural documents, as the Plenum requires;
• do not submit “opinions of a neural network” as evidence — use AI to prepare the position and enter the case through procedural forms (an expert examination, a specialist, explanations);
• keep a log: which tool, what was commissioned, who verified it.

Legal work with AI under control is the direction of continuous support; training the team — the diff.academy wiki.