The future of AI in court documents

The working group is chaired by Lord Justice Birss, with Mrs Justice Joanna Smith serving as deputy chair, alongside a diverse membership including legal professionals and representatives from the Bar Council and Law Society. The main objective is to draft a consultation paper and final report to assess whether specific rules are necessary for AI implementation in legal documentation such as pleadings and witness statements.

On October 29, 2026, the working group published its final report. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chair of the CJC, endorsed the report, noting the potential for AI to improve civil justice administration but highlighting the need to maintain accuracy and integrity within the court processes. “AI has the potential to support the effective administration of civil justice, but its use must not compromise the accuracy, reliability or integrity of material placed before the court,” Vos stated.

Initial findings from a June 2026 consultation indicated a strong consensus among respondents that no additional formal requirements for AI in drafting basic legal documents are necessary, as existing professional responsibilities are deemed sufficient. However, the area of AI application in preparing witness statements remains contentious, with differing opinions on whether extra safeguards are needed. Concerns have been expressed about AI’s capacity to reshape or influence witness evidence, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining the authenticity and integrity of personal accounts.

Alongside emerging challenges posed by unrepresented litigants, the working group is contemplating a balanced approach for witness statements that may include transparency measures without complicating justice processes. They aim to maintain existing frameworks while exploring further recommendations for AI usage in expert evidence.

Brett Dixon of the Law Society expressed apprehension regarding AI's role for individuals representing themselves in court, worrying that misleading AI-generated documents could disrupt legal proceedings. He emphasised the need for urgent, clear guidance for safe AI use and the importance of professional training and safeguards in legal practice.