AI's role in courts increases, oversight needed

12 May 2026News

The Law Society urges government action to ensure responsible AI use in court document preparation

The Law Society of England and Wales has recently highlighted the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in the British legal system, particularly in the preparation of court documents. In its response to the Civil Justice Council’s consultation, the Law Society stressed the urgency for the UK government and regulators to ensure that AI is used responsibly. They called for the Solicitors Regulation Authority to provide explicit guidance on professional duties concerning AI and suggested a review of the existing Code of Conduct. Furthermore, HM Courts & Tribunals Service is urged to create straightforward guidance on the use of AI in courts.

The potential for AI to enhance the efficiency of legal proceedings is significant. However, this comes with serious risks, including inaccuracies, biases, fairness concerns, and issues related to confidentiality and data protection. "We need a balanced framework to support the use of AI in court proceedings," said Ian Jeffery, chief executive at the Law Society. He emphasised the importance of safeguards to maintain accuracy and fairness, which are vital for public trust in the system.

The Law Society recommends that practical, step-by-step actions be taken to implement new disclosure requirements that clarify when AI is employed in court processes. Professional responsibilities will remain paramount, yet ensuring that solicitors have the necessary training and support to effectively oversee AI implementations is essential. “A range of measures, including training and good governance of AI systems must work alongside new rules on transparency,” Jeffery added.

The Law Society is dedicated to collaborating with the Civil Justice Council, courts, regulators, and the UK government to establish appropriate frameworks that facilitate responsible AI use for the benefit of society. As other countries move forward to create conducive conditions for AI in courtrooms, the call for similar action in the UK is more pressing than ever.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

SRA updates guidance for litigation supervision

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has enhanced its supervision guidelines to clarify litigation conduct after recent court rulings

Millions of fathers lack parental responsibility

Many fathers may be surprised to learn about their parental responsibility rights and how to secure them

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...