The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has heard concerns in the sector that using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to prepare witness statements may “reshape, embellish or otherwise influence evidence”.
In an update on the findings of its consultation on the use of AI for the preparation of court documents, the CJC’s working group said that existing professional responsibility frameworks are considered "sufficient" to guide legal professionals on the use of AI in preparing pleadings, advocacy documents, skeleton arguments and similar documents.
No additional formal requirements relating specifically to AI are currently necessary in that respect.
However, it said that consultation responses revealed differing views on whether additional safeguards or disclosure requirements are needed in relation to using AI for witness statements.
The working group added: "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."
The working group noted that many of the concerns raised "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," it said.
The consultation was launched in February and closed in April this year.
The working group said it 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.
The group meanwhile said that, subject to finalisation, it supports maintaining the current position on AI use in professional legal drafting.
It also backed the introduction of proportionate transparency regarding expert evidence and the recognition of the distinct and evolving challenges posed by litigants in person.
The group now plans to continue its research in order to consolidate its position on the use of AI in witness statements, and will later prepare a draft report setting out its recommendations to the Civil Justice Council.
The final report will be presented later this year.
Adam Carey
