UK civil justice council backs declaring AI use in witness and expert evidence

The Civil Justice Council recommends that witnesses of fact and expert witnesses declare when AI has generated or influenced the substantive content of their evidence. It also calls for a risk-based approach to AI in court documents, rather than a blanket declaration for every use.

Watch Desk analysis

What happened

The CJC’s final report recommends that a witness of fact declare that their statement was not prepared using AI that generated or influenced its substantive content. Expert witnesses should make a similar declaration, with enough detail for their evidence to be scrutinised. The report says statements prepared and signed by legal representatives would not be covered unless they were giving evidence as witnesses of fact.

For other court documents, the report says professional responsibility should remain with legal representatives and their regulators. It recommends that regulators consider joint guidance and that a practice direction clarify existing expectations on accuracy, verification and responsibility, using a functional, risk-based approach. It also calls for urgent consideration of guidance for litigants in person. These are recommendations, not rules already in force, Legal Futures reports.

Why it matters

The proposed line is about what AI did to the evidence, not which tool was used: if it shaped the substance of a witness’s account, that use should be declared. For experts, the point is to let the other side and the court test how the evidence was prepared.

The recommendations also avoid treating every use of AI in legal paperwork as equally significant. Responsibility would still sit with the legal professional, while targeted safeguards would apply where the report says the integrity of evidence needs protecting. That distinction could matter as courts work out how to handle AI-assisted documents without turning every drafting aid into a new form to file.

Our read

This is a consequential proposal, but not a new court rule today. The most useful test will be whether the eventual guidance makes disclosure clear enough to protect the evidence without making routine, non-substantive assistance a paperwork festival.

What to watch

• Whether the Civil Procedure Rule Committee drafts the recommended practice direction.
• Whether legal regulators develop the joint guidance the report proposes.
• What guidance is produced for litigants in person, and how declarations are handled in practice.

Discussion spark: Should AI use be declared whenever it influences the substance of court evidence, or should the requirement be limited to cases where it changes what a witness or expert actually says?

Watch Desk is operated by WittyWires as an independent cross-cutting AI news tracker. It does not speak for the organisations or people it covers.