From the Public Safety edition of November 8, 2026
England and Wales Civil Justice Council final report recommends AI declarations for witness statements and expert reports and a Practice Direction, but no new rules for lawyers’ drafting
Civil Justice Council (England and Wales), as summarised by Lewis Silkin LLP · Courts / AI in court documents · England and Wales (United Kingdom)
- Publisher
- Lewis Silkin LLP
- Original publication
- Lewis Silkin, Nov. 5, 2026
- Source retrieved
- 2026-11-09
What happened
Lewis Silkin summarises the CJC’s final report on AI in preparing court documents. The CJC recommends keeping responsibility with legal representatives and their regulators, supplemented by a regularly updated Practice Direction covering legal representatives and litigants in person; urgent consideration of guidance for litigants in person; a CPR amendment requiring a witness of fact to declare that AI used in preparing a statement has not generated or influenced its substantive content; and a declaration by experts where AI generates or influences their report, with methodology disclosed. It proposes no new declaration rule for pleadings, skeleton arguments or advocacy, and a functional rather than technical definition of AI use. The firm warns that “influence” may be hard to bound and could deter efficient uses. The recommendations are not yet in force.
Why it matters
Court systems weighing AI rules can compare a risk-based model that targets evidence integrity (witness and expert material) rather than all drafting. U.S. courts differ, so transferability is limited to design lessons.
Evidence and measured results
Secondary summary of a final report; recommendations only; no data on prevalence of AI misuse or effects of any rule.
Limitations and uncertainty
Recommendations not adopted; civil jurisdiction; commentary by a law firm; U.S. state courts follow different rule paths.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-11-09; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- Courts and legal teams lack clear, consistent rules and records for AI use in evidence documents.
- Stakeholders
- Court administrator
- Presiding judges
- Bar or practice leaders
- Court technology lead
- Legal aid and self-represented litigant services
- Discovery questions
- Which AI uses touch witness or expert evidence today?
- How would we show a declaration is accurate?
- What guidance exists for self-represented litigants?
- Value hypothesis
- A simple AI-use register and declaration workflow can make future rules easier to meet; no efficiency gain is evidenced.
- Potential engagement
- Short policy and workflow design for AI use in evidence preparation at one court or legal practice.
- Unsupported claims
- That the CJC proposals will be adopted
- That declarations reduce AI misuse
- That U.S. courts will follow this model
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Records and workflow design for AI use in evidence documents; no model evaluation implied.
- Architecture and integration
- Integrate AI-use logging with document management and statement or report templates.
- Prerequisites
- Inventory of approved AI tools
- Document management system access
- Agreed functional definition of AI use
- Constraints
- Civil proceedings in England and Wales only
- Scope of “influence” unclear
- Rules not in force
- Security
- Keep case-sensitive drafts inside approved environments and restrict tool data retention.
- Proof of value
- Reconstruct AI use for a sample of ten statements from logs alone
- Time the declaration process against manual recall
Delivery
Role takeaway
- Work
- Set up register, definitions, declaration template and staff briefing.
- Dependencies
- Rule-making outcome
- Counsel agreement on definitions
- Tool inventory
- Ownership
- Court administrator or practice risk lead.
- Skills and adoption
- Train staff to apply the generate versus influence test and to document tool use.
- Governance checkpoints
- Review when the CPR committee acts
- Quarterly audit of declarations
- Regulator guidance check
- Acceptance criteria
- Declaration completed for all sampled witness statements and expert reports
- AI-use records sufficient to answer the declaration questions in a sampled audit
- Risks
- Overbroad scope deters efficient uses
- Declarations signed without verification
- Rules change before rollout
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
Courts and practitioners need records of how AI tools were used in evidence preparation so declarations can be made and tested.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Responsibility stays with named people; declarations and a Practice Direction would formalise it, while regulators keep detailed guidance current.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Witness statements and expert reports contain sensitive case material; tool choice and data handling matter when AI touches them.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
Litigants in person are flagged as an urgent gap; legal staff would need training on the generate versus influence distinction.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
Procurement of AI tools for legal work should ask for usage logging that supports declarations; no tool evidence is given in the source.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
A regularly updated Practice Direction plus regulator guidance splits detail between court rules and professional bodies.
Publication history
- 2026-11-08Public Safety · Issue 635 resources
Stable resource ID: cjc-final-report-ai-court-documents-witness-expert-declarations-lewis-silkin-20261105