The Civil Justice Council has today published recommendations on the safe and responsible use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of court documents.

In a final report, the CJC’s working group recommends that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee prepare a Practice Direction adopting a functional, risk-based approach to AI use. This would focus 'on whether AI has generated or influenced the substantive content of material submitted to the court and the resulting risks to the integrity of proceedings and the administration of justice'.

The report makes 15 recommendations, concluding that guidance for legal professionals should remain primarily the responsibility of legal services regulators, 'which should work together to promote a consistent approach'. It also recommends that the CJC and CPRC urgently consider guidance for litigants in person using AI in civil proceedings.

The working group also recommends that witnesses of fact should be required to declare that AI used in preparing their witness statements has not generated or influenced their substantive content. There should be a specific declaration where AI has generated or influenced the substantive content of an expert’s report, with sufficient information provided to allow the expert evidence to be scrutinised effectively.

The report does not recommend general declarations of AI use by legal representatives preparing statements of case, skeleton arguments or other advocacy documents, stressing: 'Legal representatives should remain responsible under their existing obligations for the accuracy and reliability of those documents'. Nor does it recommend that legal representatives should generally be required to identify the AI tools they have used.

Sir Colin Birss

Sir Geoffrey Vos, master of the rolls, head of civil justice, and chair of the Civil Justice Council, said: 'I welcome the publication of the CJC’s final report on the use of AI for preparing court documents. 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. I am grateful to Sir Colin Birss and the Working Group, and to all those who contributed to the consultation.'

Birss will succeed Vos as MR on 1 November.