The Civil Justice Council has recommended that witnesses of fact and expert witnesses in civil proceedings should make specific declarations about their use of artificial intelligence, while rejecting any equivalent requirement for lawyers preparing statements of case and skeleton arguments, in the final report of a working group chaired by Sir Colin Birss.
Birss said in the foreword to the report, dated 29 October 2026, that its recommendations were intended "to promote the safe and responsible use of AI in the preparation of court documents". The report follows an interim report and consultation published in February.
The working group made 15 recommendations. These included:
- Guidance to the legal profession on AI use should remain the responsibility of the legal services regulators, which should work together to make their guidance consistent and explore issuing joint guidance.
- The Civil Procedure Rule Committee should prepare a plain language Practice Direction consolidating the case law on the use of AI, and the sanctions for its misuse, by legal representatives and litigants-in-person.
- The CJC should consider, as a matter of urgency, the approach to be taken to AI use by litigants-in-person.
- A witness of fact should be required to declare that AI used in preparing their statement has not generated or influenced its substantive content.
- An expert should be required to make a declaration where AI use has generated or influenced the substantive content of their report, disclosing the tool used where that is necessary for the evidence to be scrutinised.
- Legal representatives should not be required to declare AI use in statements of case, skeleton arguments or other advocacy, to tell the court which AI tools they have used, or to seek the court's permission to use AI.
- No reforms are currently needed on AI use in disclosure, subject to the work of the Disclosure Review Working Group.
The report said the Civil Procedure Rules should not attempt to define AI by reference to the technology or to categorise tools as generative, administrative or otherwise. The rules should instead take a "functional, risk-based approach" that asks whether a particular use of AI is capable of generating or influencing the substantive content of material put before the court.
On witness statements, the working group said the use of AI that can generate or influence content "can be viewed as analogous to witness coaching", because it may result in evidence being embellished, strengthened or otherwise altered. The declaration would apply to represented parties and litigants-in-person alike and would not prohibit any particular tool. The report said: "It is a declaration that focuses on the result of such use, not on the use itself or the tool that produces the result."
The working group said experts should be treated differently from lawyers because AI use may go directly to an expert's methodology and reasoning, and disclosure may be needed for the opposing party and the court to test the evidence.
Some consultation respondents raised concerns that the use of publicly available AI translation tools could lead to breaches of confidentiality, undermine legal professional privilege and raise data protection issues, and suggested that parties should obtain permission before using them. The working group declined to recommend new rules.
It said confidentiality, privilege and compliance with data protection law were matters of professional regulation and substantive law that are properly dealt with outside rules of court, and that it was for parties and their legal representatives to ensure they complied with those obligations. It recommended that all translations, including those produced by AI, should be certified by a professional human translator and accompanied by the original text.
The report also warned that AI transcription, although it can be categorised as an administrative tool, may produce content that does not accurately reflect what was said or is entirely fictitious.
The working group described the absence of guidance for litigants-in-person as "a significant gap in the current framework". It said the CJC should draw on its Futures Group and be guided by the views of a new cross-jurisdictional AI Committee established by the judiciary.
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and chair of the CJC, welcomed the report and said the use of AI "must not compromise the accuracy, reliability or integrity of material placed before the court".
The CJC will review the extent to which the recommendations have been taken forward in its next annual review.
The final report is available at: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Use-of-AI-for-the-Preparation-of-Court-Documents-Final-Report.pdf
