Recommendations touched on litigants-in-person, witness statements, expert evidence
A working group of the UK’s Civil Justice Council (CJC) has released the second of two reports on the use and regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) for preparing court documents in civil proceedings, with recommendations regarding litigants-in-person, witness statements, and expert evidence.
According to the final report, as a starting point, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the Legal Services Board (LSB), other professional regulators, and legal representatives should regulate AI use in this context.
Per the report, a practice direction issued by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) should guide such regulation. The practice direction should:
On Feb. 17, the CJC’s Working Group on the Use of AI for Preparing Court Documents published its interim report, which covered the swift development of AI use in legal proceedings in England and Wales civil courts and other jurisdictions’ approaches to regulating such AI use.
The working group considered consultation responses when developing its recommendations.
“The Working Group thanks all those who have contributed,” said Sir Colin Birss, the working group’s chair, in a foreword to the report. “It has been greatly assisted by the many responses it received to its Interim Report and Consultation. All responses, and the points which they raised, have been considered carefully.”
According to the working group, the CJC should urgently address the approach to AI use by litigants-in-person in civil proceedings, while the CPRC should revise the practice direction as needed in the context of the CJC’s recommendations.
To ensure the integrity of witness statements, the working group suggested a differential approach:
The report clarified that the recommended declaration would not prevent the use of any particular AI tool.
Given the importance of transparency and a level playing field in the expert process, the working group recommended amending the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
Specifically, the working group suggested adding a declaration about AI use and revising the AI use guidance for experts. According to the report, these recommendations aim to help the court and the opposing parties scrutinize and test expert evidence.
Otherwise, the report opposed introducing declarations regarding AI use. The report also did not recommend requiring parties to apply for permission to use AI when preparing materials for submissions in civil proceedings.
At a recent press conference, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers, and West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey announced that they were suing OpenAI for harming children and deceiving their parents.
According to J.S. Held’s recent analysis of the emerging AI litigation landscape, technical causation and economic harm frequently relied on a single factual record, which meant that coordination among technical, financial, and governance experts was more crucial than ever.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest international law news on the main page!
