It suggested a functional and risk-based approach, focusing on whether AI has generated or influenced the substantive content of the documents and the resulting risks to the integrity of proceedings and the administration of justice.
In total, the CJC’s ‘Use of AI in preparing court documents’ working party, co-chaired by Sir Colin Birss and Mrs Justice Joanna Smith, made 15 recommendations in its final report last week.
These included that witnesses of fact be required to declare that AI has not generated or influenced the substantive content of their witness statements.
The working party recommended a specific declaration where AI has generated or influenced the substantive content of an expert witness’s report, with enough information provided to allow the evidence to be scrutinised effectively.
The working party recommended legal representatives remain responsible under their existing obligations for the accuracy and reliability of documents.
It stopped short of recommending general declarations of AI use when preparing statements of case, skeleton arguments or other advocacy documents, or of requiring legal representatives to identify what AI tools they used.
It concluded legal services regulators should continue to have primary responsibility for guidance on AI use, and should work together to promote a consistent approach. However, it called on the CJC and Civil Procedure Rule Committee to ‘urgently consider’ guidance for litigants-in-person using AI in civil cases.
Sir Geoffrey Vos, former Master of the Rolls, said: ‘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. The report proposes a proportionate, risk-based approach which maintains professional responsibility while introducing targeted safeguards where they are needed.’
