This first appeared in my Newsletter Kerry on Costs, Regulation, Legal Systems and so much more.
Subscriptions are £250 + VAT for 2026, which is over 100 issues. Buy here.
On 17 February 2026, the Civil Justice Council published its interim report and consultation on
Use of AI for Preparing Court Documents.
The consultation ends at midnight on 14 April 2026, and there is a separate document listing the 19 consultation questions, and here, I look at the areas covered by those questions.
Statements of Case
Broadly, in relation to Statements of Case, the Civil Justice Council proposes that provided the Statement of Case, or a Skeleton Argument, or any other advocacy document bears the name of the legal representative who is taking professional responsibility for it, there is no need for any further rules relating to such documents produced with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence.
Disclosure
In relation to disclosure, the Civil Justice Council states that there does not appear to be a pressing case to introduce a requirement that disclosure lists/statements have a section addressing the extent to which Artificial Intelligence tools/software have been used.
Witness Statements
The Civil Justice Council makes different proposals for different kinds of Witness Statements and distinguishes between Trial Witness Statements and non-Trial Witness Statements.
Non-Trial Witness Statements
The Civil Justice Council proposes that provided the statement bears the name, or firm name, of the legal representative who is taking professional responsibility for its preparation, there is no need for any further rules relating to these documents being produced with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence.
Trial Witness Statements
The proposal is that there be a rule requiring a declaration on such a statement that Artificial Intelligence has not been used for the purpose of generating its content, including by way of altering, embellishing, strengthening, diluting, or rephrasing the evidence of the witness.
This would apply to Witness Statements under Practice Direction 57AC and Witness Statements under CPR 32.
Witness Statements involving Translators
Here are the questions:
13. In relation to witness statements involving translation, one issue relates to use of AI by translators. Should there be a rule making provision for the use of AI by human translators? If a translator is prepared to sign a statement of accuracy, taking responsibility for it, is there any need to enquire further? A further proposal is to permit the use of publicly available machine translation, provided the tool used is identified, and provided (if necessary) that provision is made clarifying that other parties are entitled to check the translation themselves by using such a tool. Do you agree? If not, why not? Do you favour the alternative below? If so why
14. An alternative to the previous proposal would be only to permit such use by a legal representative and to require that the legal representative involved in the preparation of the translation should identify what tool has been used. Do you favour this alternative?
Experts
The proposal is that the specific provisions for Statements of Truth used by experts should be amended to add a further requirement confirming that the expert’s report identifies and explains any Artificial Intelligence which has been used, other than for administrative uses such as transcription.
General Issues
16. Is the term artificial intelligence sufficiently clear to be used in theseproposed rules? If not do you have an alternative proposal?
17. One of the distinctions drawn between different uses of AI is between activity defined in the report as administrative uses, which merely corrects spelling or grammar, provides transcription, operates as accessibility software, or assists with formatting and otherwise does not generate substantive content on the one hand, and activity which generates substantive text, images or videos on the other. Another distinction drawn is between fact evidence and the product of legal research. Do you agree with the distinctions drawn in these proposals? If not, what alternatives do you propose?
18. Should the endorsements proposed always identify the AI tool used? If so, to what end?
19. Should there be a rule providing for a power to give a party permission to use AI for some specific purpose? If such a rule should be introduced, should it be general or confined to specific uses?