How should the UK court police the use of Generative AI in the preparation of court documents?  The Civil Justice Council is consulting on this issue, with proposals that raise fundamental questions on how litigators and their clients interact with the court and each other.

Our Technology team has produced an insight outlining the key proposals and next steps.  The CJC’s consultation is open until Tuesday 14^th April, and the most significant proposals are: 

1. For witness statements for trial there should be a declaration that AI has not been used for the purpose of generating the content of such a statement
2. For expert reports there should be an explanation of what use of AI has been made other than for transcription, and that the expert identifies the AI tools used.

Interestingly, the CJC does not propose similar requirements for statements of case, skeleton arguments, or witness statements not for trial (e.g. for interlocutory application).  The main reason given is that the relevant professional will retain responsibility for the content of those documents.  The CJC also considers that disclosure is catered for already e.g. through TAR and existing duties of cooperation pursuant to the CPR.

However, the consultation does float alternative proposals in many of these areas, so the ultimate recommendations are uncertain, and for discussion. 

The UK judiciary is not alone in grappling with these issues.  Just last week the Irish Court of Appeal in Guerin v O'Doherty [2026] IECA 48 issued guidance focused on the use of AI in preparing legal submissions.  This guidance applies to all litigants, including Litigants In Person, whereas the CJC expressly excludes LIPs from its proposals.  The current equivalent leading English court decisions in relation to hallucinations are Ayinde v. London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v. Qatar National Bank, of course.

What could this mean for litigators?

Lawyers and clients alike are working out how best to integrate GenAI into managing their disputes, and also working out where GenAI can be of limited benefit, or even actively harmful.  We will no doubt see these issues work their way through cases, but they will take time.  In the meantime, litigators must make decisions on how to run their cases and how to deal with the decisions their opponents have made, such as:

• How should we strike the right balance?
• How might these proposals impact the efficiency and reliability of court proceedings?
• Are there lessons from other jurisdictions that the Civil Justice Council should consider?