- within Technology, Wealth Management and Employment and HR topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
Earlier this year, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published an interim report and consultation on whether rules were needed for the use of AI by legal representatives preparing court documents. The consultation attracted significant interest and a large number of responses. The CJC has now published an update on its consultation findings, setting out key themes and potential next steps.
Respondents broadly agreed that, for legal professionals preparing pleadings, advocacy documents, skeleton arguments and similar documents, no additional AI-specific requirements are necessary. Existing professional responsibility frameworks are sufficient.
The main area of ongoing debate is the use of AI in preparing witness statements, where views differ on whether additional safeguards or disclosure requirements are needed.
The update also identifies both expert evidence and litigants in person as raising distinct issues requiring further attention.
The CJC expects to publish its final report later in 2026. The update indicates that its direction of travel is currently towards: maintaining the current position for AI use in professional legal drafting; introducing proportionate transparency for expert evidence; and recognising the distinct and evolving challenges posed by litigants in person.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP contributed to the consultation. If you would like to discuss the recent update, please do get in touch.
For more information on the consultation, see here.
Statements of case and advocacy documents
The CJC noted in its interim report and consultation that statements of case, skeleton arguments and other advocacy documents are prepared by legal representatives who are subject to professional regulation and have obligations to act with honesty and integrity in their dealings with the court, which include not misleading the court or advancing propositions which are not properly arguable. It proposed that, provided such documents carried the name of the responsible legal representative, no further rules on AI use in the production of those documents were needed. Alternatively, the CJC proposed that the responsible legal representative should declare whether AI had been used in preparing such documents.
The consultation responses show broad consensus that no additional requirements relating specifically to AI are necessary.
The CJC’s Working Group therefore currently favours maintaining the current position for AI use in professional legal drafting, rather than requiring legal representatives to make a specific declaration about AI use.
Witness statements
In its interim report, the CJC proposed that trial witness statements should include a declaration that AI had not been used to generate their content, including by altering, embellishing, diluting or rephrasing the witness's evidence.
Consultation responses reflect differing views on whether additional safeguards or disclosure requirements are needed, though all emphasise the importance of preserving the authenticity, integrity and personal recollection of the witness. Respondents raised concerns about AI tools being used in ways that may not be immediately apparent. However, the Working Group also recognises that many of these concerns overlap with existing principles on the preparation and testing of evidence, rather than being entirely new. Careful consideration is therefore needed on whether existing mechanisms – such as statements of truth, disclosure obligations and cross-examination – are sufficient.
The CJC’s Working Group is now actively exploring whether a proportionate and workable approach can be developed for witness statements, including whether some form of disclosure would help, rather than harm, the administration of justice.
Expert reports
In its interim report, the CJC proposed amending the statement of truth used by experts to include a requirement about AI usage. Experts would need to explain whether and how AI had been used in preparing their report and identify the specific AI tool used.
The update notes that expert evidence raises distinct issues requiring further attention, and the Working Group’s direction of travel is towards introducing proportionate transparency in relation to expert evidence.
Litigants in person
Although the interim report focused on legal representatives and specifically excluded litigants in person, the update identifies litigants in person as raising distinct and evolving challenges that require further attention.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
