# Civil Justice Council Rejects AI Declarations for Lawyers

> England and Wales should not make lawyers declare AI use in court papers, a final report says. Witnesses of fact and expert witnesses are a different story.

By The Circle Desk | AI in Practice | Published 2026-10-29
Source: https://legaltechcircle.com/insights/civil-justice-council-ai-court-documents/

The body that advises on civil procedure in England and Wales has
finished its review of AI in court documents, and its answer for
lawyers is no new paperwork. The Civil Justice Council's working group
on the use of AI for preparing court documents published its [final
report](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/Use-of-AI-for-the-Preparation-of-Court-Documents-Final-Report.pdf)
on October 29. It makes 15 recommendations. Lawyers would not have to
declare AI use in pleadings, skeleton arguments or other advocacy.
Witnesses of fact and expert witnesses would.

The report follows an [interim report and
consultation](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Interim-Report-and-Consultation-Use-of-AI-for-Preparing-Court-Documents-2.pdf)
published on February 17, 2026. The group was chaired by Sir Colin
Birss, with Mrs Justice Joanna Smith as deputy chair, and included
representatives of the Bar Council and the Law Society, according to
the CJC's [project
page](https://www.judiciary.uk/related-offices-and-bodies/advisory-bodies/cjc/current-work/use-of-ai-in-preparing-court-documents/).

> "AI has the potential to support the effective administration of civil justice, but its use must not compromise the accuracy, reliability or integrity of material placed before the court," said Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls and chair of the Civil Justice Council, on the project page.

## What the Report Recommends for Lawyers

The headline is Recommendation Four: no new rules requiring legal
representatives to make a declaration about AI use in statements of
case, skeleton arguments or other advocacy. Lawyers stay responsible
for accuracy under their existing duties. The report says a
tool-focused declaration would raise definitional problems about what
counts as an AI tool and invite satellite litigation, with no matching
benefit.

The group also rejected two other ideas. Lawyers would not have to
tell the court which AI tools they used (Recommendation Fourteen), and
there would be no rule letting a court grant permission to use AI
(Recommendation Fifteen). Disclosure, where technology assisted review
is well established, gets no new rules for now, subject to the
separate Disclosure Review Working Group.

What the report does want is consolidation. It recommends that the
Civil Procedure Rule Committee write a plain-language Practice
Direction that pulls together the case law on AI use and the sanctions
for misuse, covering lawyers and litigants in person. It also asks
that the rules define AI use by function, meaning whether a use can
generate or influence substantive content, rather than sorting tools
into labels such as generative or administrative. Guidance on
professional conduct would stay with the regulators, which the report
urges to work together and consider joint guidance.

## Witnesses and Experts Get the New Declarations

The new declarations land on evidence, not advocacy. Under
Recommendation Six, a witness of fact would have to declare that AI
used in preparing the statement has not generated or influenced its
substantive content. The report applies this whether or not the party
has a lawyer. It does not ban any tool. It focuses on the result: the
evidence has to stay in the witness's own words.

The report explains why witness evidence is treated differently.

> "The use of AI in this way can be viewed as analogous to witness coaching, which is impermissible because of the effect it has on their evidence," the working group wrote.

This is a shift from the interim report, which proposed a declaration
by the legal representative on trial witness statements. The final
version puts the declaration on the witness and covers witness
statements of fact generally. Statements prepared and signed by a
lawyer for procedural or interim purposes stay with the lawyer's
professional responsibility.

Experts get a separate requirement. Recommendation Nine calls for a
new declaration where AI generates or influences the substantive
content of an expert's report, with enough detail, including the tool
where necessary, for the other side and the court to test the
methodology. The interim report had proposed that experts explain any
AI use beyond transcription. The final version targets substantive
use, which consultation responses strongly supported.

## How It Compares With New York and California

The report lands in the middle of a split. New York's court system
told lawyers this week that they may use AI without disclosing it,
provided they verify everything, as we covered in our [New York guide
post](https://legaltechcircle.com/insights/new-york-courts-ai-guide-attorneys/).
California went the other way. [Dechert
notes](https://www.dechert.com/knowledge/re-torts/2026/10/Scrutiny-of-AI-at-the-Bar-States-Expand-Efforts-to-Limit-AI-Misuse-in-Courts.html)
that SB 574, effective January 1, 2027, requires attorneys to disclose
generative AI use in court filings without prescribing the form, and
that a pending New York bill, S2698, would require disclosure and
human verification in appellate briefs.

The Civil Justice Council sides with New York's court system on
lawyers' papers. Its reasoning echoes many respondents: AI is built
into so many legal tools that a declaration says little about
accuracy. Where it goes further than either U.S. approach is on
evidence, by treating AI-shaped witness statements as a coaching
problem.

## What It Means for Firms and Vendors

Nothing changes in the rules today. These are recommendations to the
Civil Procedure Rule Committee, which would have to draft and adopt
any Practice Direction or rule change, and the report says the CJC
will review progress in its next annual review.

For firms litigating in England and Wales, the practical signal is
about witness statements. Tools that summarize interviews or polish a
witness's account are the ones a future declaration would put at risk,
because the witness would have to confirm AI did not influence the
substance. Plain transcription of the witness's own words does not
appear to be the target, though the report recommends that all
translations, including AI translations, be certified by a human
translator. For vendors selling expert support tools, expect clients
to ask what their product did, because experts may have to say.

## Common Questions

**Do lawyers in England and Wales now have to disclose AI use?**

No. The report recommends against new declarations for statements of
case, skeleton arguments and other advocacy, and none of its
recommendations are rules yet.

**Who would have to make an AI declaration?**

Witnesses of fact, about whether AI generated or influenced the
substance of their statement, and experts, where AI generated or
influenced the substance of their report.

**Does the report ban AI in witness statements?**

No. It says the declaration does not prohibit any tool. It requires
that AI use not change the substantive content of the witness's
evidence.

## What to Watch

Watch whether the Civil Procedure Rule Committee takes up the Practice
Direction and the witness and expert declarations, and how quickly.
Also watch the urgent work the report asks for on litigants in person,
whose lack of guidance it calls a significant gap, and whether the SRA
and Bar Standards Board move toward joint AI guidance.

---
Legal Tech Circle (https://legaltechcircle.com/). News and analysis, not legal advice.