FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Barristers
AI can help draft or tighten a skeleton argument, but the barrister who signs it answers for every contention and authority in it. No AI-specific rule is planned for skeletons, so the existing conduct duties carry the whole weight.
Part of: AI in Barristers
In short
The Civil Justice Council consulted on AI in court documents until 14 April 2026 and proposed no new rule for skeleton arguments or statements of case where the responsible lawyer is named. A June 2026 update said respondents broadly saw no need for one; the final report is expected later in 2026. That leaves rC9.2, which bars unsupported contentions, and the duty to verify every authority. A skeleton challenged in court can bring adverse or wasted costs, a BSB referral and a client claim on counsel's BMIF policy.
Typical uses are structuring an argument from a note of issues, compressing a draft to fit a page limit, turning a chronology into a statement of facts, generating likely counter-arguments and smoothing the prose. Each carries a different risk. Compression can drop a qualification that mattered; paraphrasing can subtly restate a legal test; and a tool asked to "strengthen" a point may add an authority from nowhere.
The BSB's AI guidance maps drafting to CD1, rC3, rC6 and rC9.1 (not misleading the court) and rC9.2 (no unsupported statements of fact or contentions). CD7 requires competent work and rC20 means the judgement in the skeleton must be counsel's own. The guidance notes that judicial guidance generally does not require a representative to refer to AI use, depending on context, but counsel must answer honestly if the court asks.
The Civil Justice Council review of AI in court documents proposed a declaration for trial witness statements and disclosure of AI use by experts, but no new rule for skeleton arguments or statements of case where a responsible lawyer is named. The reasoning is that the named lawyer already carries professional responsibility for the content. For counsel that is not a relaxation: it confirms that responsibility sits with the person whose name is on the document. Our pages on AI and pleadings and witness preparation cover the other documents.
The BSB's sixth principle is that clients, solicitors and opponents may also use AI. Counsel receiving an opponent's skeleton, or one from a litigant in person, should check the authorities cited rather than assume they exist. Drawing a false citation to the court's attention is part of the duty to the court under CD1, and responding to a skeleton built on authority that does not exist without noticing can weaken your own client's position. Check the propositions, not only the case names.
Illustrative: counsel uses an AI tool to cut an appeal skeleton to the page limit. The shortened version restates the test for permission in slightly different words and keeps a footnote citation that the tool has altered to a neighbouring paragraph of the judgment. The respondent points out both errors, the court criticises the skeleton and the hearing time is lost. The lay client later argues that the appeal was weakened by the drafting.
If a client claims the skeleton cost them the hearing, that is usually a civil liability claim within counsel's BMIF cover, subject to the terms: the BSB minimum terms require at least £500,000 each and every claim with defence costs in addition, and do not allow an AI exclusion. Proving loss can be difficult where the underlying argument was weak anyway. A wasted costs application is treated according to the policy wording, and any BSB fine is a permitted exclusion. Read more in fake citations at the Bar and AI-generated advice and negligence.
Apex arranges PI for barristers and can review whether your BMIF and top-up cover respond to drafting errors in AI-assisted work. See the AI at the Bar hub for related guides.
The BSB guidance notes that judicial guidance generally does not require representatives to refer to AI use, depending on context, and the CJC has not proposed a rule for skeletons. You must answer honestly if the court or the BSB asks, and you remain responsible for every word.
Not on current proposals. The CJC consultation, which closed on 14 April 2026, proposed no new rule for skeletons or statements of case where the responsible lawyer is named, and a June 2026 update said respondents broadly agreed. The final report is expected later in 2026.
Yes. The BSB guidance reminds barristers that opponents may also use AI. Checking the authorities in an opponent's skeleton protects your client and helps the court, and failing to spot a false authority can leave you responding to an argument that has no real basis.
The BSB minimum terms contain no AI exclusion, so a claim arising from an AI-assisted skeleton is usually handled like any other drafting error, subject to the policy terms. Regulatory fines remain excluded whatever caused the breach.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
