How to Check an AI Legal Citation Before You File It: Kuwait, Egypt and Lebanon

By Stephane Boghossian · 2026-10-28 · 7 min read · Guides

A judgment number with no year, a session date that falls on a weekend, an article that was amended. A practical checklist for verifying AI legal citations in Kuwait, Egypt and Lebanon.

Ask a lawyer in Kuwait, Cairo or Beirut what worries them about AI and you rarely hear "it writes badly". You hear: "It gave me a judgment that doesn't exist."

That fear is well founded. A public tracker of court decisions involving AI-fabricated citations passed 2,202 cases by 19 October 2026. The Gulf has its first costs order too: in Arabyads v Alam, the ADGM Courts ordered AED 282,508 in wasted costs after a defence relied on authorities that didn't exist or didn't support the point.

The fix isn't to stop using AI. It's to know what a real citation looks like in your jurisdiction, and to check every one before it reaches a judge.

The short answer

A citation you can't locate is not a citation. If you can't find the judgment or the article at the source, it doesn't go in the brief.
Each jurisdiction has its own citation shape. Missing fields (appeal number, year, chamber, session date) are the first red flag.
Check the point, not just the existence. Real judgments cited for something they don't say are harder to catch than invented ones.
Responsibility stays with you. Regulators in the UAE, Qatar and England say the same thing: AI doesn't move your duty to verify.

What a complete citation looks like

Use these as a checklist of fields. If the AI's citation is missing one, ask for it. If it can't supply it, treat the citation as unverified.

Jurisdiction	Fields a complete cassation citation carries	Watch out for
Egypt (Court of Cassation)	Appeal number (رقم الطعن), judicial year (السنة القضائية, written "لسنة ... ق"), session date (جلسة), and the circuit (civil, commercial, criminal)	The judicial year is not the calendar year. A citation that mixes the two is a warning sign.
Kuwait (Court of Cassation, محكمة التمييز)	Appeal number, year, the chamber or subject (commercial, civil, personal status, administrative), and session date	Rulings by subject. A "commercial" principle cited for a civil point may not apply.
Lebanon (Court of Cassation, محكمة التمييز)	Chamber (الغرفة), decision number (قرار رقم), and date. Example of the shape: Cassation, 10th Chamber, Decision No. 33, 9/7/2009	Lebanese chambers can split on the same question. One decision is not always "the" rule.

None of this is exotic. It's what a careful associate already does. The difference is that AI can produce a citation with every field filled in and still be wrong, so the fields tell you what to check, not that it's right.

The six checks

1. Find it at the source

Open the judgment itself. In Egypt, the Court of Cassation publishes judgments on its own portal. In Kuwait, litigants can now pull the full text of rulings in their own cases through the Ministry of Justice's Sahel app. For anything else, use the published collections, a recognised database, or the court registry. A summary from the same AI tool, or from another chatbot, is not a source.

2. Match every field

Number, year, chamber, date. If the judgment you find has the right number but a different year or chamber, it's a different judgment.

3. Read the paragraph you're relying on

Does the court actually say what the brief says it says? Is it the holding, or the court restating a party's argument? This is where most real-but-wrong citations slip through.

4. Check the article is current

For statutes, open the Arabic text and confirm the version in force on the date that matters. A correct summary of an amended article is still wrong.

5. Ask again, differently

Run the key question in a fresh session with different wording. If the answers disagree on the authority or the outcome, treat all of them as unverified until you check the source.

6. Keep a note of what you checked

Log which sources you opened and who checked them. If a court ever asks, "the AI said so" is not an answer. A note in the file is.

Red flags that a citation may be invented

The year is missing, or the Egyptian "judicial year" is a calendar year.
The session date falls on a weekend or an official holiday.
The principle reads like a textbook summary, with no facts from the case.
The citation is "too perfect": exactly on point for your unusual facts.
You ask for the full text and get a different number, or a polite retreat.

Where HAQQ Legal AI fits

HAQQ Legal AI shows a reference beside each paragraph, so you can open the source and run checks 1 to 3 in a click instead of a search. It makes checking faster. It doesn't replace it, and no tool should claim to.

Frequently asked questions

Can I cite a cassation principle from a summary collection?

Collections are useful finding aids. Before filing, confirm the principle against the judgment text, or at least against an official or recognised collection that gives the full reference.

What if I can't access the full judgment?

Then say less. Cite the principle as reported, name where it is reported, and don't build your main argument on it.

Is a citation from a legal AI tool safer than one from ChatGPT?

A tool built on curated legal sources should hallucinate less, and should show you where each point came from. Your duty to check doesn't change either way.

Who is responsible if a fake citation gets filed?

You are. See Who Is Responsible When AI Invents Case Law?

Sources and further reading

FAQ