Over the past year, courts at various levels have encountered parties using AI to draft court submissions. In three different cases, the decisions below offer a reminder: using AI to draft a submission does not, in itself, make the filing of an action, appeal or application for retrial procedurally unlawful. But relying on AI alone, without legal knowledge and practical expertise, does not ensure compliance with the basic requirements of the relevant procedure. It also carries the risks of AI hallucinations and errors. Below are excerpts from three recent Taiwanese court decisions that have attracted considerable discussion. Supreme Court, Criminal Judgment 115 Tai Shang No. 3896: “Generative AI can produce text, but it may not be able to formulate legally sufficient grounds for a third-instance appeal. It can assist with drafting, but it cannot take over a party’s responsibility for procedural acts. What the court examines at the third instance is whether the judgment under appeal contains specific violations of law, not the number of legal terms used or the apparently professional legal language of the text. Although the court must identify the parties’ legal arguments, it has no duty to correct errors resulting from the use of generative AI on a party’s behalf (including AI hallucinations such as fabricated or incorrectly cited facts, legal authorities, judicial decisions or materials in the case record), supply missing materials from the record, or reconstruct the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, the mere suspicion that an appeal petition or statement of grounds was drafted wholly or partly using generative AI does not constitute a reason to dismiss the appeal. However, if the appellant fails to identify specifically how the judgment under appeal violates the law, such that legally sufficient grounds for a third-instance appeal have not been stated, the court must dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with the statutory procedural requirements.” Taiwan Taoyuan District Court, Civil Judgment 115 Su No. 867: “The Court’s advice is this: after receiving the judgment, consult a lawyer and get a clear explanation. Naturally, we mean a real, flesh-and-blood, licensed lawyer. Do not ask AI, do not use AI to draft an appeal petition, and certainly do not assume that others cannot tell it was written by AI.” Taiwan Taipei District Court, Civil Ruling 115 Sheng Zai No. 31: “Although the applicant for retrial asserts that the original final ruling is subject to a ground for retrial under Article 496, paragraph 1, subparagraph 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the alleged discovery of evidence that had not been considered amounts only to statements in the written submissions. It also appears that the applicant reproduced conversations with a generative AI system in those submissions, without actually producing the allegedly unconsidered evidence.” The English translations of these excerpts are provided for this website and are not official court translations. The Chinese text is the reference version.