By Neil Hartnell

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Chief Justice’s revised directive on using artificial intelligence (AI) was yesterday hailed as potentially paving the way for greater judicial efficiency and eliminating barriers that deter investors from coming to The Bahamas.

Jacy Whittaker, the ParrisWhitakker attorney and partner, told Tribune Business that Sir Ian Winder had “got it right” with a November 5, 2025, practice directive that places accountability for any AI misuse or mistakes on the very attorneys, litigants and court officials that employ it.

Asserting that persons “must understand that AI is not a magic tool box that will replaced lawyers, he nevertheless argued that if used “properly” it can help Bahamian judges “dissect” huge volumes of legal filings and deliver judgments more “efficiently”.

Describing judges as “over worked”, Mr Whittaker told this newspaper that quicker issuance of verdicts will also enhance The Bahamas’ competitiveness as an international business centre since clients have previously revealed to him that the lengthy wait to obtain justice - whether perceived or real - means they will not do business in this nation.

Sir Ian’s latest practice directive, branded as a “guide” for the use of generative AI by the legal profession in court proceedings, comes after this practice has already generated mistakes and problems in the Bahamian judicial system as well as in other nations.

Tribune Business revealed earlier this year how the Supreme Court had reported attorney Darell Taylor to the Bahamas Bar Council’s ethics committee after she submitted three “fake cases” generated by AI to back her arguments.

Justice Denise Lewis-Johnson, in an August 1, 2025, verdict said placing the “fictitious cases” before her “may very well amount to contempt of court” as she branded the predicament facing Ms Taylor “a warning” to the entire Bahamian legal profession over “how very dangerous” AI can be if not properly used.

The Chief Justice has now made “accountability” the central theme for how AI is to be used in court proceedings in The Bahamas. The courts “will be fully accountable to the public for any use of AI in decision-making functions”, ensuring its use does not undermine a person’s right to a fair hearing “before an impartial tribunal”.

Accuracy, too, is identified as critical with the courts charged with “verifying the results” of any AI-generated output used in its work. The same principles will also govern the work of attorneys and litigants who represent themselves in the Bahamian judicial system.

“Generative AI may be used to assist judicial officers and court users with material for court proceedings, including the drafting of documents, summarising information and drafting decisions,” Sir Ian’s directive states.

“Judicial officers and court users assume full responsibility for the accuracy, appropriateness and relevance of any material filed.

“The court may require a user to disclose whether a Generative Al tool was employed in the preparation of any document or evidence. Court users should be prepared to identify specific portions of their submissions influenced by Generative AI and explain the steps taken to ensure accuracy.”

Mr Whittaker said Sir Ian’s new directive replaces an earlier one that appeared to be modelled on that issued by the Caribbean Court of Justice. He described that directive as overly prescriptive and “restrictive”, and written by someone “afraid of technology” as it almost seemed to penalise attorneys for using AI.

The ParrisWhittaker partner added that Sir Ian’s directive, while warning all legal professionals to “be careful”, had struck the correct balance by placing accountability and responsibility on the very individuals and firms that use AI in their work.

“They are actually really good,” Mr Whittaker said of Sir Ian’s instructions. “I was a bit worried The Bahamas would adopt the approach in other jurisdictions like Jamaica and the Caribbean Court of Justice, which were almost restrictive. It’s almost like they want to penalise you for using technology; you have to apply for leave to use AI.

“It doesn’t make sense. You don’t have to apply for leave to use e-mail. The Chief Justice puts it where it belongs; on the lawyers and the judges.” Pointing out that Bahamian attorneys already have to comply with the Bar Association’s code of ethics, and have a duty of confidentiality and other fiduciary responsibilities to clients, Mr Whittaker argued that forbidding - or severely restricting - AI’s use would be akin to “a double rule for a lawyer”.

“I’m proud they did something right; I’m proud they took a step in the right direction,” he said of the Chief Justice’s new directive. “In the past, The Bahamas has always been one jump ahead. This time they’ve taken their time and got it right.

“The first directive from the Caribbean Court of Justice is almost prescriptive because it’s only saying ‘don’t do this; don’t do that’. The latest directive is more like ‘if you’re going to do this, be careful’. It falls at your feet. You can tell that the first one was written by people who fear the Internet. That’s my feeling; they were afraid.”

As for the potential benefits from AI adoption, Mr Whittaker said if done correctly it could ease the burden on Bahamian judges who are expected to hear numerous cases while also delivering judgments on often-complex commercial, civil and criminal matters.

“For the whole legal system, for the courts, it can help them dissect a lot of material that litigants put before them,” he told Tribune Business. “I think we need that in the legal system because judgments take a long time to be issued after the hearings are concluded. I think it will help with the efficiency of delivery of these rulings….

“I think it will help us to be fair, as many people won’t want to admit it but I’ve spoken to clients who refuse to do business in The Bahamas because access to justice is slow and they do not want to wait four to five years to get their funds back in a case.

“If we are now telling judges don’t be afraid of this technology, and use this technology to allow judges to do their work more efficiently, because judges are over-worked… No one’s saying judges are not doing their job but they are over-worked. They have to sit in court from Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm, and somewhere in between we expect them to sort through all this legal paperwork and write judgments,” Mr Whittaker added.

“It’s impossible. There’s no time for judges to do their job. With AI and the judicial legal assistance that the Chief Justice has brought into play, judges will be able to sign-off on a ruling much quicker. I’m not saying that they take forever.

“But people don’t want to come to The Bahamas; the foreign direct investment (FDI). I’ve had clients say they are not coming to The Bahamas because, if someone has not paid them what they owe, they are not going to wait for five years to get their money back. It’s all inter-connected. It’s a great step forward.”

Describing AI as “a buzzword”, Mr Whittaker said the likes of ChatGPT need to be “better understood” by the likes of the legal profession and other Bahamian industries. He voiced optimism that the Bar Association will provide AI-related training to its members.

“People need to understand what AI is,” the ParrisWhittaker partner said. “It’s not a magic tool box that will replace lawyers. It’s a suite of tools. It’s the next level of Internet, and something we have to use properly. I think it will help the courts be more efficient in delivering verdicts, and we have to figure out how to implement it.”

Sir Ian’s directive warned court users that generative AI can produce “hallucinations and may be inaccurate”, and results “may be biased, incomplete or in breach of copyright” while also lacking confidentiality protections.

“Court users shall not input privileged or sensitive information into unsecured AI platforms as Chat Bots prompts, requests or interactions within the programme may be automatically added to the large language model database, and used to respond to queries from other users which would make confidential information potentially available to others unless it is disabled,” he added.

“Sensitive material and information to which professional privilege may attach may not be inputted by court users in a public chatbot.” Witnesses will require the court’s permission to attach AI-generated exhibits to an affidavit, and how this material is generated will have to be disclosed.

“Court users are responsible for the accuracy of their written submissions and skeleton arguments prepared with the use of generative AI,” Sir Ian added. “Therefore, information shall be cross-checked against reliable databases to ensure it is accurate and trustworthy.

“Where generative AI has been used in the preparation of written submissions or skeleton arguments, the author shall indicate in the body of the submission or skeleton that generative AI was used.”

So-called “expert” witness reports cannot be drafted or prepared using AI without the court’s permission, Sir Ian said, while also setting out a series of penalties - such as striking out legal filings, refusing to accept documents or “imposing costs” - on attorneys and their clients who fail to disclose use of AI or verify the sources used.