AI for Lawyers in Oman and the GCC: Confidentiality, Court Guidance and Verification
Lawyers in Oman and the Gulf can use AI every day for drafting, summarising, building chronologies, comparing documents and finding a starting point for research. They cannot hand it their professional duties. Two rules decide almost everything.
1. Confidentiality. Oman’s Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law prohibits a lawyer from disclosing information learned through the profession. Client material therefore goes only into tools your firm has approved for it, on terms that keep it confidential.
2. Verification. Every authority, quotation and article number must be checked in an official or authoritative source before it reaches a client or a court. Courts in England and the United States have already dealt with lawyers who filed fictitious AI-generated cases. In the Gulf, the DIFC Courts’ guidance expects parties to declare the use of AI-generated content “at the earliest possible opportunity”.
Treat AI as a fast junior who has never been admitted and is sometimes confidently wrong.
The short answer
- Good uses: first drafts from your own precedents; summaries and chronologies with document references; comparing versions; translation drafts for internal understanding; billing narratives; research starting points.
- Confidentiality: Articles 47 and 55 of the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law, issued by Royal Decree 41/2024, and the professional oath. No client material in public AI tools.
- Verification: open every authority in an official source, and check that the text is the version in force.
- Courts: follow any guidance from the court you appear before. The DIFC Courts ask for early disclosure and prior verification.
- Firm policy: approved tools, matter-level rules, supervision, records and client communication.
What goes wrong when lawyers trust AI
In Mata v. Avianca, decided in New York on 22 June 2023, a federal judge sanctioned two lawyers and their firm after they filed a brief citing cases, produced by ChatGPT, that did not exist.
In June 2025, the High Court of England and Wales heard two referrals together: Ayinde v Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank. In Al-Haroun, eighteen of the forty-five citations put before the court did not exist. The judgment, given by Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division, and Mr Justice Johnson, said that freely available generative AI tools “are not capable of conducting reliable legal research”. Their “coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect”. Lawyers who use them therefore have “a professional duty … to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources”.
Neither case turned on unusual technology. Both turned on a lawyer relying on output nobody had checked.
Where AI helps in daily legal work
| Task | Safe pattern | What the lawyer checks |
|---|---|---|
| First drafts | Generate from your own precedents and a clear instruction, inside an approved tool | Every clause against the client’s instructions and the governing law |
| Summaries of bundles and contracts | Ask for a page or clause reference for every point | Key points against the source; nothing material omitted |
| Chronologies | One entry per document, with its date and reference | Dates and parties against the documents themselves |
| Comparing versions | List the changes between two drafts and what each changes in substance | The comparison against a proper redline |
| Translation drafts | Arabic–English drafts to understand a document | Anything filed or relied on goes through the translation route the court or authority requires |
| Billing narratives | Turn time notes into clear entries | Accuracy, and that descriptions reveal nothing they shouldn’t |
| Research starting points | Ask which laws and topics a question touches | The law itself, in its current version, from an official source |
| Searching firm knowledge | Search your own precedents and notes | That the precedent is current and fits the matter |
For searching a firm’s own documents, an internal AI assistant for company documents explains how such tools are built and permissioned.
Confidentiality under Oman’s Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law
The Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law was issued by Royal Decree 41/2024 on 3 October 2024 and took effect six months after its issue, replacing the Advocacy Law of 1996. It does not mention artificial intelligence. It doesn’t need to. Four provisions apply directly:
- Article 47 prohibits a lawyer from disclosing any information or data learned by virtue of the profession, unless the aim is to prevent a crime.
- Article 55 requires a lawyer to keep what the client confides, unless the client asks for it to be disclosed in defence of the client’s interests in the case.
- Article 23 sets the oath every lawyer takes on first registration, which includes preserving the secrecy of the profession.
- Article 48 requires a lawyer to defend the interests entrusted to them with the utmost effort and care.
Typing a client’s facts into a public AI tool whose terms let the provider keep or use the input is hard to reconcile with Article 47. The practical rules follow from that:
- Approved tools only, on business terms that exclude training on your inputs, with known retention periods and data location.
- Minimise. Remove names and identifying details where the task doesn’t need them.
- Matter-level restrictions. Some clients will prohibit AI use or set conditions. Record them on the matter.
- Data protection applies too. Client files contain personal data, so sending them to a model hosted abroad is a transfer under the Personal Data Protection Law. What your chatbot does with customer data explains the transfer conditions.
Courts and AI in the Gulf
The DIFC Courts issued Practical Guidance Note No. 2 of 2023, on the use of large language models and generative AI in proceedings, with effect from 21 December 2023. It says parties “should declare at the earliest possible opportunity” their use of AI-generated content, and that any concerns should be resolved no later than the case management conference. Parties should not rely on AI-generated content without first verifying its accuracy.
If the court or tribunal you appear before has issued guidance, follow it. Where none applies, the DIFC approach is a sensible default: declare early, verify everything, and remember that the person who signs a submission vouches for its contents.
The outdated-law problem
AI models learn from data gathered up to a point in time, and may not know about later changes. Oman’s legislation has moved quickly:
- the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law replaced the 1996 law in 2024;
- a new Cybercrime Law was issued by Royal Decree 61/2026 in June 2026;
- the Personal Data Protection Law was amended by Royal Decree 68/2026 in September 2026.
A model can describe the old text with complete confidence. The cure is the same every time:
- confirm each law and article in its current version, in the Official Gazette or an authoritative legal database;
- check amendments and executive regulations, and their dates;
- quote from the official text, never from the model’s paraphrase.
What Royal Decree 68/2026 changed shows how far one amendment can move the position.
A verification protocol for legal work
- Every authority opened — law, regulation, judgment — in an official or authoritative source, and the cited passage read.
- Every quotation compared word for word with the source.
- Version and date checked for every legal text.
- Facts checked against the documents, not against the summary.
- Arabic and English versions compared where both exist, with the authoritative text identified.
- A record kept of what was AI-assisted and who verified it.
Checking AI output covers the general routine, and prompting in Arabic covers drafting legal Arabic with AI.
What a firm’s AI policy should cover
- The approved tools, and what data each may receive.
- Tasks that are permitted, restricted and prohibited.
- Supervision: juniors’ AI-assisted work is reviewed like any other work, with the AI use visible.
- Client communication: engagement terms that address AI use, and how to handle clients who prohibit it.
- Court work: disclosure where required, and verification before filing.
- Records: prompts and outputs for significant work kept on the matter file.
- Training, refreshed as the tools change.
A policy for staff using AI tools gives a starting template.
Frequently asked questions
Can lawyers in Oman use AI tools? The Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law does not address AI directly, but its confidentiality and diligence duties apply in full. Use approved business tools with suitable data terms, keep client information out of public tools, and verify everything before relying on it.
Is it a breach of confidentiality to put client documents into a public AI tool? It can be. Article 47 prohibits disclosing information learned through the profession, and a public tool whose terms let the provider keep or use your input is the wrong place for client material. Business tools that exclude training and set retention are a different matter, subject to the client’s instructions.
Do I have to tell the court I used AI? Follow the rules of the court you appear before. The DIFC Courts’ guidance asks parties to declare AI-generated content at the earliest possible opportunity and to verify it before relying on it.
Can AI do legal research? It can suggest where to look. The High Court of England and Wales said freely available generative AI tools “are not capable of conducting reliable legal research”. Treat AI output as a lead, and confirm every authority in an official source.
How do I stop AI from citing outdated law? Give it the current official text and instruct it to use only that, then check the version and date of every provision yourself. Oman’s 2024 Advocacy Law and the 2026 amendments to the data protection law are examples of changes a model may not know about.
Should our engagement letters mention AI? It is good practice to state whether and how AI tools are used, what data they receive, and that a lawyer reviews all output. Some clients will set their own conditions.
This article states the position under the laws in force on 28 October 2026, the date of publication. It is not legal advice.
Sources: Royal Decree 41/2024 — Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law · Ayinde v Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank — High Court judgment, 6 June 2025 · DIFC Courts — Practical Guidance Note No. 2 of 2023 · Royal Decree 68/2026 amending the Personal Data Protection Law · Royal Decree 61/2026 — Cybercrime Law
Want AI tools your firm can use without risking client confidentiality? ZAWAT builds AI and automation and custom software with approved-tool controls, permissioned document search and audit trails designed in. Book a call.