CJC Calls for Declaration About AI Use in Drafting Witness Statements

Why It Matters

Requiring AI non‑use declarations for witness statements safeguards evidential integrity and preserves trust in civil proceedings, while the broader guidance shapes how the legal sector adopts emerging technologies.

Key Takeaways

• CJC proposes AI non-use declaration for trial witness statements.
• AI disclosure not required for other documents if lawyer responsible.
• AI hallucinations and bias cited as major risks.
• Expert reports must disclose AI use beyond transcription.
• LiPs AI use unregulated; future guidance suggested.

Pulse Analysis

The Civil Justice Council’s latest consultation reflects a pivotal moment for the legal profession as artificial intelligence becomes a routine tool in case preparation. By recognizing AI’s capacity to streamline research, data analysis, and document drafting, the CJC underscores the technology’s potential to improve efficiency and reduce costs. At the same time, the council warns of inherent dangers—hallucinated content, bias from training data, and the erosion of accountability—prompting a cautious approach that preserves the integrity of the justice system while embracing innovation.

Central to the CJC’s recommendations is a targeted declaration requirement for trial witness statements. Unlike other filings where a lawyer’s signature suffices, the council argues that witness statements must remain the unaltered words of the witness, prohibiting AI‑generated alterations, embellishments, or re‑phrasings. This stance aligns with practice direction PD57AC and Part 32, ensuring that the evidentiary weight of witness testimony is not compromised by algorithmic interference. For non‑trial statements, AI assistance is permissible so long as professional responsibility is clearly attributed, striking a balance between practical utility and procedural fidelity.

Beyond witness statements, the report calls for explicit AI disclosures in expert reports, except for routine transcription tasks, and flags the unregulated use of AI by litigants in person as a policy challenge. While AI can democratize access to legal resources, unchecked reliance may introduce inaccuracies that mislead courts. The CJC’s forward‑looking language signals an industry‑wide dialogue on broader AI regulation, encouraging law firms to develop internal safeguards and prompting policymakers to consider frameworks that protect both access to justice and the reliability of court proceedings.