The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has provided an important indication of how the courts may regulate the use of artificial intelligence in litigation, publishing an update on its review of AI-assisted preparation of court documents. While the final report is not expected until later in 2026, the emerging direction of travel is one that should reassure insurers and legal practitioners who are increasingly incorporating AI tools into their workflows.
Background
In January 2025, the CJC established a working group chaired by Lord Justice Birss to examine whether specific rules are required to govern the use of AI by legal representatives when preparing court documents, including pleadings, witness statements and expert reports. The review forms part of the CJC's wider remit to ensure that the civil justice system remains accessible, fair and efficient.
Following a consultation process to which Weightmans responded, the working group has now completed its initial analysis and identified several key themes that are likely to shape future recommendations.
No immediate move towards new rules for legal drafting
Perhaps the most significant finding for insurers and their panel firms is the strong consensus that no additional AI-specific requirements are currently needed for legal professionals preparing pleadings, advocacy documents, skeleton arguments and other litigation documents. Respondents generally considered existing professional and regulatory obligations sufficient to govern the responsible use of AI.
This reflects a developing judicial view that AI is a tool rather than a substitute for legal judgment. Solicitors and barristers remain responsible for the accuracy, integrity and evidential basis of documents submitted to the court, regardless of whether AI has been used during preparation.
For insurers, this is a welcome development. Many claims’ teams and panel firms are already using AI-assisted technologies to support document review, legal research, chronology preparation and drafting efficiency. The CJC's initial conclusions suggest that such innovation is unlikely to face significant regulatory barriers in the near term.
Witness statements remain the key concern
The area attracting the greatest scrutiny is the use of AI in preparing witness statements. Consultation responses highlighted concerns that AI tools could influence, reshape or embellish evidence, potentially affecting the authenticity of a witness's own recollection.
The working group noted that maintaining the integrity of witness evidence is fundamental to the administration of justice and is actively considering whether additional safeguards or disclosure requirements may be appropriate. However, it also recognised that many of the perceived risks are not entirely new and overlap with existing controls, including statements of truth, disclosure obligations and cross-examination.
This is particularly relevant to casualty, motor, liability and fraud claims, where witness evidence often plays a central role in determining liability and quantum.
Potential changes for expert evidence
The CJC has also indicated support for greater transparency regarding AI use in expert reports. Its current direction of travel points towards introducing "proportionate transparency" measures in relation to expert evidence. While detailed proposals have not yet emerged, insurers should anticipate future expectations that experts disclose the extent to which AI tools have been used in research, analysis or report preparation. Such developments could become increasingly relevant in complex claims involving medical evidence, engineering investigations, fire causation, cyber incidents and autonomous vehicle technologies.
Implications for claims
Although the final recommendations are awaited, several practical messages are already emerging:
AI-assisted drafting by legal professionals is likely to remain permissible, provided existing professional obligations are met.
Human oversight remains essential; responsibility for court documents cannot be delegated to AI systems.
Additional scrutiny may develop around witness statements, particularly where AI could influence personal recollection or narrative evidence.
Expert witnesses may face future transparency requirements regarding AI use.
Insurers should review governance frameworks for AI use across claims, legal and expert supplier networks to ensure processes can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Looking Ahead
The CJC's emerging position suggests that the courts are seeking a balanced approach: encouraging technological innovation while preserving the integrity of evidence and the fairness of the litigation process. Rather than imposing broad restrictions on AI, the focus appears to be on managing specific risks where authenticity and evidential reliability are paramount.
For insurers, the message is clear. AI is becoming an accepted part of modern litigation practice, but governance, transparency and human accountability will remain critical. As the final report is expected later in 2026, insurers should continue to monitor developments and ensure that any deployment of AI within claims and litigation functions is supported by robust controls and clear professional oversight
