The Civil Justice Council (‘CJC’) has published an Interim Report and Consultation on the Use of AI for preparing court documents. The focus of the consultation paper is whether court rules are required to regulate the use of AI by legal representatives. However, the consultation also examines whether the use of AI by experts should be subject to court rules, with specific proposals set out in Part 8 of the consultation document.

For the purposes of the consultation, court documents are grouped into:

• Statements of case,

• Skeleton arguments and other advocacy documents,

• Witness statements, and

• Expert reports.

We will be responding to the consultation and would appreciate your views on the questions asked by the CJC by 5 April 2026. You can provide responses to policy@ewi.org.uk. While we are interested in any views, we would particularly appreciate views on the following questions:

• 1. The scope of this work has been concerned with rules relating to legal representatives, on the basis that guidance is a matter for their professional bodies.  Do you agree with that approach to guidance?  If not, please explain why not.  

EWI Note: While this question relates to legal representatives, we would be interested in understanding if you would agree that guidance for experts on the use of AI should be a matter for their professional bodies. If so, how do you think experts should deal with any inconsistencies in the guidance of the professional bodies to which they belong?

• 15. 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 AI which has been used, other than for administrative uses such as transcription.  Do you agree? If not why not? 

• 16. Is the term artificial intelligence sufficiently clear to be used in these proposed 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?