The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has published an Interim Report and Consultation to “consider whether rules are needed to govern the use of AI by legal representatives for the preparation of court documents”.

It follows a number of recent high-profile examples of lawyers citing non-existent authorities after using AI, and a warning from the President of the King’s Bench Division (discussed here) that the use of AI “must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained”.

The consultation considers the range of documents used in court proceedings and whether different rules are required for categories. For example, in the case of skeleton arguments and statements of case, the CJC suggests that, provided the document bears the name of a legal representative who takes professional responsibility for it, there is no need for any further declaration about the use of AI. Similarly, for disclosure, it states that “there does not appear to be a pressing case to introduce a requirement that disclosure lists/statements have a section addressing the extent to which AI tools/software have been used”. 

A different view is taken in relation to witness statements. Given the requirements of Practice Direction 57AC that a statement should be written in a witness’s own words (rather than those of their legal representative), the CJC observes that “it is difficult to see that the aims and objectives of PD57AC in the legally represented context can properly be met if AI is used, other than for non-text generating purposes”. Therefore, it proposes that a new rule be introduced that requires a declaration that “AI has not been used for the purposes of generating the content of such a statement (including by way of altering, embellishing, strengthening, diluting or rephrasing the witness’s evidence)”. A similar approach is proposed for witness statements not covered by PD57AC. However, for witness statements not intended for use at trial, the CJC considers it sufficient that the legal representative continues to take responsibility for their preparation. 

As for expert evidence, the CJC proposes that experts should explain in their reports “what use of AI has been made other than for transcription (or other administrative uses)” and identify the AI tools used.

The consultation, which seeks views on these proposals, closes on 14 April 2026 and can be found here.