AI-Generated Documents in Ukrainian Court Proceedings: Risks, Sanctions, and What Foreign Counsel Must Know

Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used by legal practitioners to draft procedural documents, research case law, and build legal arguments. In Ukraine, this trend is accelerating – but so is judicial scrutiny. Ukrainian courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, have issued a growing body of rulings that carry a clear message: AI-generated content submitted without professional verification will be treated as an abuse of procedural rights, a contempt of court, or grounds for vacating a decision entirely.

This article analyses five documented Ukrainian court decisions from 2024–2025 in which AI use led to adverse outcomes – ranging from refused cassation proceedings and returned appeals to an overturned criminal conviction. The cases span both party-submitted documents and, notably, a case where AI use by the court itself became the basis for reversal. The implications are directly relevant to foreign counsel and international litigants operating in, or considering litigation in, Ukraine.

⚠️ Key takeaway: Using AI output in Ukrainian court filings without expert review and verification is treated not as a procedural irregularity but as a professional failing – and may constitute contempt of court.

1. AI Hallucinations in Cassation Filings: Non-Existent Precedents

The most structurally dangerous AI failure in legal work is the generation of fabricated case citations – references to court decisions that do not exist. Large language models can produce plausible-sounding case numbers, court names, and legal holdings that are entirely fictional. When these hallucinations find their way into cassation briefs without independent verification, the consequences are severe.

Case No. 240/14153/24 | Supreme Court of Ukraine – Cassation

Outcome: Cassation proceedings refused; conduct characterised as abuse of procedural rights and contempt of court

The applicant's cassation appeal cited conclusions from rulings of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court and various Supreme Court panels. During preliminary review, the court established that none of the cited decisions existed. The Supreme Court noted that the pattern of citations was consistent with AI-generated hallucinations. While the court confirmed that using AI to prepare procedural documents is not per se prohibited, it held that submitting AI-generated content without professional verification constitutes improper fulfilment of professional duties and bad-faith use of procedural rights – and may amount to contempt of court.

This ruling is particularly significant because it establishes a clear doctrinal position: the prohibition is not on AI use itself, but on the absence of independent expert review before submission. The professional obligation to verify the accuracy of cited authority is non-delegable to an AI system.

2. ChatGPT-Drafted Appeal Returned by Anti-Corruption Court

A second category of risk involves using AI not to fabricate authority but to substitute for substantive legal argument – effectively asking a chatbot to write legal reasoning where professional analysis is required.

Case No. 991/4110/25 | Appellate Panel, High Anti-Corruption Court (Hacc) – May 2025

Outcome: Appeal returned to the applicant; AI use deemed an abuse of procedural rights and contempt of the judiciary

The applicant filed an appeal against a ruling of an investigating judge of the hacc, noting in the text itself that she had turned to ChatGPT because her lawyers had declined to prepare the document. The appellate panel found that the appeal contained sarcastic and offensive characterisations of the court and the judicial system, and that its AI-generated content lacked adequate legal grounding. The court emphasised that judicial decisions must be based on applicable law and the factual circumstances of the case – not on AI-generated emotional arguments or personal characterisations of judges. The use of ChatGPT output without professional legal framework was treated as contempt of court and of the justice system as a whole.

📋 Counsel note: This case is instructive for international litigants: the court's objection was not merely formal. The decision draws a direct connection between AI-generated content and a failure to engage with the court in a professionally and legally appropriate manner.

3. When the Court Uses AI: A Criminal Conviction Overturned

The risks of AI misuse are not confined to the parties – they extend to judicial decision-making itself. One of the most striking recent precedents involves a criminal conviction that was overturned on appeal precisely because the first-instance court had incorporated AI-generated content into the judgment.

Case No. 755/11177/23 | Dniprovskyi District Court, Kyiv (first instance) / Kyiv Court of Appeal (reversal, July 2025)

Outcome: Criminal conviction vacated; case remitted for retrial

The Dniprovskyi District Court of Kyiv issued a verdict in a criminal case in June 2024. On appeal, the Kyiv Court of Appeal found the verdict unlawful, unsubstantiated and insufficiently reasoned. The central basis for reversal was that the first-instance court had included in the judgment arbitrary interpretations of general legal concepts and theoretical propositions generated by ChatGPT. The appellate court held that this called into question judicial discretion and the court's legal analysis. The ruling expressly reaffirmed that technology must respect the nature of judicial proceedings: AI is an auxiliary tool only and cannot substitute for the judge's role in establishing facts and applying law.

This case establishes that AI contamination of a court's own reasoning is a ground for appellate reversal – a development with significant implications for the reliability of first-instance decisions in Ukraine and the appellate strategy of foreign litigants challenging such decisions.

4. AI Outputs as Evidence: Two Rejected Attempts

Beyond AI-generated legal argument, some litigants have attempted to submit AI-generated responses as documentary evidence in support of their factual or legal positions. Ukrainian courts have consistently rejected this approach.

4.1 grok and ChatGPT Outputs as Contract Interpretation Evidence

Case No. 925/496/24 | Supreme Court of Ukraine – Commercial Cassation

Outcome: Cassation appeal rejected; AI outputs refused as admissible evidence

The cassation applicant grounded its appeal in part on the responses of two AI systems (Grok and ChatGPT) concerning the interpretation of a specific contractual sub-clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that AI can be a useful and auxiliary informational tool in the justice system but cannot replace the role of judges or the principles of relevance, admissibility, and reliability of evidence under the Code of Commercial Procedure. The court further noted that the applicant was using AI technology not to assist the administration of justice but to challenge conclusions the court had already reached – an impermissible purpose.

4.2 Police Submitting ChatGPT Output as Technical Evidence

Case No. 728/2501/25 | Administrative Court

Outcome: AI-generated printout rejected as insufficient evidence

In an administrative case involving a traffic fine for the absence of rear mud flaps, the respondent (Chernihiv Regional Police) submitted printouts of ChatGPT queries and responses as evidence that the vehicle's construction required mud flaps. The court found that the ChatGPT printout was not evidence capable of establishing with sufficient persuasiveness that the vehicle's design specifications required mud flaps, and that it could not serve as the legal basis for the administrative sanction. The court rejected it as inadmissible.

5. Practical Implications for Foreign Litigants and International Counsel

The pattern emerging from Ukrainian case law is clear and consistent. Four practical conclusions follow directly from the decisions analysed above.

First: AI use in litigation is permissible – unverified AI use is not.

Ukrainian courts do not prohibit the use of AI in preparing procedural documents. The prohibition is on submitting AI output that has not been subject to rigorous professional review. Every citation, legal holding, and factual assertion generated by AI must be independently verified against primary sources before submission.

Second: AI outputs do not constitute admissible evidence.

Ukrainian courts have consistently rejected AI-generated responses – whether framed as factual evidence, expert commentary, or legal analysis – as failing to meet the standards of relevance, admissibility, and reliability required by procedural law. Submitting AI outputs as evidence is not only ineffective but risks adverse credibility assessments.

Third: the risk is not limited to the parties.

Case No. 755/11177/23 demonstrates that AI contamination of a judicial decision is itself a basis for appellate reversal. Foreign litigants should be alert to this as a potential ground of challenge where first-instance decisions exhibit the hallmarks of AI-generated reasoning – generic theoretical frameworks, non-specific legal analysis, or language inconsistent with the factual specifics of the case.

Fourth: enhanced document review is now a necessity.

As AI becomes more prevalent in litigation preparation, the review of opposing counsel's filings and court decisions requires a higher level of attention. Fabricated citations, non-existent precedents, and generic AI-generated reasoning can appear in documents at every procedural level. Competent Ukrainian IP and litigation counsel should form part of any foreign client's team conducting proceedings in Ukraine.

Conclusion

The Ukrainian courts' position on AI in litigation is nuanced but firm. AI is a permissible and potentially useful tool; unverified AI output presented to a court is a professional failure and a procedural abuse. For foreign clients and international counsel engaged in Ukrainian litigation, these cases represent a clear due diligence standard: every AI-assisted document must be subject to expert legal verification before submission, and every opposing filing and court decision should be scrutinised for AI-generated content that may provide grounds for challenge.

Ukraine's rapid alignment with European legal standards in this area, combined with its active judicial engagement with AI-related misconduct, places it at the forefront of courts grappling with legal technology risk – a development worth monitoring closely.