On 17 February 2026, the Civil Justice Council (“<span class="news-text_medium">CJC</span>”) published an <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Interim-Report-and-Consultation-Use-of-AI-for-Preparing-Court-Documents-2.pdf" target="_blank" class="news-text_link">Interim Report and Consultation</a> on the use of AI in the preparation of court documents. The consultation will remain open until 14 April 2026, after which the CJC intends to issue a final report.
The interim report explains that the consultation seeks to assess whether procedural rules should be introduced to regulate the use of AI by legal representatives when preparing court documents. In particular, the CJC is considering whether, in defined circumstances and depending on the nature of the AI use, legal representatives should be required to provide a declaration confirming how AI has been used in the preparation of documents filed with the court.
The report addresses several specific categories of court documents. For statements of case and skeleton arguments, the CJC provisionally considers that additional rules may not be necessary, provided that the document clearly identifies the legal representative who assumes professional responsibility for its contents. As an alternative approach, the CJC proposes that a specific declaration could be required to confirm whether AI has been used in drafting these documents.
Regarding disclosure, the CJC recognises that AI tools are already widely used in disclosure exercises. On that basis, it does not currently propose mandating a dedicated section in disclosure lists or statements addressing AI usage. However, consultees are invited to comment on whether such a requirement would be appropriate.
The report distinguishes between different types of witness statements. For non-trial witness statements, the proposed approach mirrors that for statements of case and skeleton arguments. By contrast, for trial witness statements governed by Practice Direction 57AC, or falling under CPR 32 but not subject to Practice Direction 57AC, the CJC proposes that a declaration should be included confirming that AI has not been used to generate the content of the statement. The report also addresses the use of AI in the context of translated witness statements and makes specific proposals in this area.
For expert evidence, the CJC recommends amending the statement of truth used by experts under Practice Direction 35.3.3. The proposed amendment would require experts to disclose how AI has been used in preparing their reports and to identify the specific tools relied upon.
The interim report also considers several broader issues, including how AI should be defined for procedural purposes, whether it is meaningful to distinguish between administrative functions (such as spell-checking) and substantive content generation and whether there should be a general requirement to disclose the specific AI tools used in all cases.
The full set of consultation questions is contained in Annex B to the interim report and reproduced in the accompanying cover sheet.
