As outlined in the Law Gazette, the Law Society has called on the Solicitors Regulation Authority, HM Courts and Tribunals Service, and the Ministry of Justice to set out how artificial intelligence can and should be managed responsibly in court proceedings, while welcoming the Civil Justice Council’s efforts to do the same. The Civil Justice Council is currently consulting on whether rules are needed to govern the use of AI by lawyers, following a series of cases in which false citations generated by AI have been presented to the court.
The Law Society’s Perspective
Ian Jeffery, Law Society chief executive, said the profession needs a balanced framework for AI in court proceedings. He acknowledged that AI has the potential to improve efficiency and widen access to justice, but argues that safeguards for accuracy and fairness are essential to ‘build public trust’. Jeffery has called for training and good governance of AI systems to work in tandem with new transparency rules, and for clear guidance to support both legal professionals and the public. As a result, the Society has recommended that the CJC take practical, step-by-step actions to introduce new disclosure requirements that clearly state when AI has been used in the preparation of court documents.
The CJC Consultation
The Civil Justice Council’s interim report and consultation considers whether rules are needed to govern the use of AI by legal representatives for the preparation of court documents.
The CJC consultation stated:
“Legal practice is changing as a result of these new and powerful tools. This is and will remain a positive development as long as the interests of justice are kept firmly in view. The overall objective of these proposals is to maintain a balance, ensuring that the latest technology can be used to maximum advantage in the civil justice system in order to enhance access to justice by improving efficiency and reducing costs; while at the same time maintaining confidence in the rule of law.”
The CJC adopted a targeted approach, distinguishing between low-risk administrative AI use and higher-risk uses where AI could affect the substance of documents relied upon by the court. The principal proposals are as follows.
- For witness statements covered by Practice Direction 57AC, the CJC proposed a mandatory declaration confirming that AI had not been used to generate, edit, rephrase or embellish the content of the statement, on the basis that such statements must reflect the witness’s own words.
- For expert reports, experts would be required to explain what use of AI has been made, other than for transcription or administrative uses, and to identify the tools used.
- For statements of case and skeleton arguments, no new rules were proposed, provided the responsible legal representative is clearly identified.
- Administrative AI uses such as transcription, formatting, and spell-checking do not require any declaration.
As the consultation summary explains, “In Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division, stated that AI “must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained”.
Final Words
The CJC has confirmed it will produce a final report once consultation responses have been assessed. The Gazette reports that further SRA guidance is in preparation for later in 2026.
We have been helping solicitors and other legal professionals with disciplinary and regulatory advice for 30 years. If you have any questions relating to an SRA investigation or an SDT appearance, please call us on 0151 909 2380 or complete our Free Online Enquiry