Use of AI in preparing court documents

At its annual strategy meeting in January 2025, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) agreed to set up a working group examining the use of AI by legal representatives for preparing court documents.

Working Group Membership

Lord Justice Birss – Deputy Head of Civil Justice (Chair)
Mrs Justice Joanna Smith – High Court Judge (Deputy Chair)
Dan Hoadley – CJC Member (Digital Technology and Information)
Professor Sue Prince – CJC Member (Lay Representative)
John Cuss – CJC Member (Solicitor)
Dr John Sorabji – CJC Member (Barrister)
Shobana Iyer – Representative from the Bar Council
Lisa McClory – Representative from the Law Society

Terms of Reference

The CJC’s statutory functions include (a) keeping the civil justice system under review, and (b) considering how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair, and efficient.

The Working Group’s terms of reference, as approved by the CJC’s Executive Committee, are laid out below.

The Working Group will produce a consultation paper, followed by a final report, seeking to address the question of whether rules are needed to govern the use of AI by legal representatives for the preparation of court documents, including pleadings, witness statements, and expert reports.

News

Update on consultation findings – June 2026

The Civil Justice Council is grateful to all those who contributed to the consultation. Initial analysis of responses has now taken place, enabling the Working Group to identify key themes and consider potential next steps.

Strong consensus on core areas

There is a high degree of alignment across respondents that, for legal professionals preparing pleadings, advocacy documents, skeleton arguments and similar documents, no additional formal requirements relating specifically to AI are currently necessary. Professional responsibility frameworks are considered sufficient to govern appropriate use.

Areas for further consideration

The principal area of ongoing consideration is the use of AI in the preparation of witness statements. Consultation responses reflect differing views on whether additional safeguards or disclosure requirements are needed.

A consistent theme across responses is the importance of preserving the authenticity, integrity and personal recollection of the witness. Concerns have been raised about the potential for AI tools to reshape, embellish or otherwise influence evidence in ways that may not be immediately apparent.

However, the Working Group has also recognised that many of these concerns intersect with existing principles governing the preparation and testing of evidence, rather than being novel issues created by AI. As such, careful consideration is required to determine whether existing mechanisms – such as statements of truth, disclosure obligations and cross examination – are sufficient.

In addition, both expert evidence and litigants in person raise distinct issues requiring further attention from the group.

Emerging direction of travel

Subject to finalisation, the Working Group’s direction of travel is towards:

  • maintaining the current position for AI use in professional legal drafting;
  • introducing proportionate transparency in relation to expert evidence; and
  • recognising the distinct and evolving challenges posed by litigants in person.

The group is actively exploring whether a proportionate and workable approach can be developed for witness statements, including whether any form of disclosure would enhance, rather than complicate, the administration of justice.

Next steps

The Working Group will now:

  • continue focused analysis to consolidate its position on the use of AI in witness
    statements;
  • prepare a draft report setting out its recommendations to the Civil Justice Council.

Read the interim report and consultation (PDF)

The final report will be refined over the coming months and presented to the Council, with publication anticipated later in 2026.