The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has published an interim report on the use of AI in the production of court documents, seeking comment on new proposals for the governance of the use of AI tools in this context.
The report from the council, which advises the Lord Chancellor, the judiciary and the Civil Procedure Rules Committee on civil procedure issues, comes as countries around the world introduce their own guidance and restrictions on best practices for AI.
This study explores the use of AI in the production of a variety of court documents, including case statements, pleadings, chronology and case summaries, witness statements, expert reports, and other related documents. It also touches on the role of AI in information disclosure.
The most important proposals put forward by the CJC include requiring witness statements prepared for trial in the Business and Property Courts, which hear most large commercial disputes in England and Wales, to include a specific declaration that no AI was used to prepare the statement.
This is in accordance with Practice Direction 57AC of the Civil Procedure Rules, which makes clear that a witness statement must be in the witness’s own words and that, even if a legal representative has primary responsibility for drafting such a statement, its content must be “taken from and not beyond the contents of the witness’s record or notes” of the witness’s own version of events.
The CJC report expressed the view that it is “difficult to see” how these requirements could be met if AI is used “for purposes other than text generation”, and the proposals would mean that legal representatives would be required to declare that AI was not used to produce the content of such statements “including in a manner that alters, embellishes, enhances, dilutes or paraphrases”.
Additionally, the CJC proposes that the declarations that expert witnesses are required to include in their reports to the court should require the expert to explain how AI is used beyond transcription and other administrative uses and to identify the AI tools used.
In contrast, the CJC does not recommend any additional rules or mandatory declarations regarding the use of AI in connection with case statements or skeletal arguments when the legal representative with professional responsibility for the content is named.
Emily Jones, litigation expert at Pinsent Masons, said the talks were timely given that AI has already begun to transform legal practice, including dispute resolution.
“We welcome that the CJC recognizes this evolution and the opportunities it presents, and is not seeking to stifle growth with overly stringent requirements,” she said.
“Solicitors are already subject to rules of professional conduct that require them to behave appropriately in the use of AI and in the preparation of documents submitted to courts. However, it is prudent to suggest some modest measures in relation to the riskier uses of AI to ensure transparency, maintain high standards of conduct and thereby protect the effectiveness, quality and reputation of the administration of justice in UK courts.”
He said flexibility is needed to reflect the diversity and rapid development of AI use, and precision is essential in choosing how to codify final rule changes.
“This report recognizes that there is debate about the meaning of ‘AI’ and that AI is used in a wide variety of ways in the context of dispute resolution, from ‘administrative’ uses such as transcription and spell checking, to research, summarization, paraphrase and generation of substantive content, and that tools and their use are constantly evolving,” she added.
“The CJC has rightly made clear that its concerns are with the more substantive uses of AI, rather than administrative ones. While inaccurate declarations can lead to sanctions, it is important that those who are required to make a declaration to the court are able to understand exactly what is required of them and reflect the nuances between different uses of AI, rather than being forced to make a declaration in terms that are too broad, general or inflexible.”
The CJC report also touches on the use of AI in relation to disclosure, but does not recommend any rule changes in this regard.
Caroline Hearn, litigation and e-discovery expert at Pinsent Masons, said the use of advanced technology in e-discovery is not new and parties are already expected to take a prudent and transparent approach to discovery, which is consistent with the CJC’s direction.
“However, as the report acknowledges, the use of AI in this area is rapidly evolving,” she added.
“Used properly, AI has the potential to significantly reduce the time and cost of large-scale discovery proceedings, which is clearly attractive for clients. However, there are also areas where further guidance would be helpful to help parties use these tools more confidently.
“One example raised in the report is whether detailed prompts entered into an AI system for disclosure purposes can themselves be disclosed, an issue that is currently being debated within the market.
“It would be particularly helpful to clarify that such prompts, whether from authoritative guidance or judicial decisions, are generally protected by legal professional privilege.”
The consultation is limited to civil justice, and the report recognizes that the use of AI will continue to develop. This does not address many related issues, including the direct use of AI by litigants who may rely on AI tools for research and document preparation. This gap leaves open the possibility that these issues and the need for potential limitations will require further consideration in the future.
The consultation will end on April 14, 2026.
