FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: HR consultants
Unchecked AI-drafted tribunal documents are likely to be rejected, as the EAT warned in Hancox v Sutherland [2026] EAT 139. HR consultants who prepare ET3s, statements and bundles for clients carry the risk if those documents fail.
Part of: AI in HR consultants
In short
HR consultants may prepare ET3 responses, witness statements and bundles for small employers. Generative AI speeds this up but can invent cases, add details a witness never gave and produce bloated submissions. In Hancox v Sutherland [2026] EAT 139 the EAT did not rely on an unchecked 300-page AI skeleton argument and warned such documents are likely to be rejected in future. Rights of audience and conduct of litigation are reserved legal activities. PI usually covers tribunal support within your declared services, subject to the wording.
Some small employers facing an employment tribunal claim do not instruct a solicitor. Instead they ask their HR consultant to help: drafting the ET3 response, preparing witness statements, assembling the bundle and sometimes writing written submissions. Generative AI chatbots make this work faster. They can summarise a claim form, suggest a structure for a response, draft statements from interview notes and produce something that looks like a skeleton argument.
The difficulty is that tribunal documents are read by a judge who will check them against the evidence and the law. Invented case references, misquoted statutes, statements that do not match what a witness actually said, and pages of irrelevant material all damage the client's case.
In Hancox v Sutherland & Ors [2026] EAT 139, decided on 17 September 2026, a litigant in person filed a "skeleton argument" of about 300 pages and 132,000 words produced by a generative AI chatbot. He had not checked it for accuracy or for compliance with the rules on skeleton arguments. The Employment Appeal Tribunal did not rely on it. The judge, Deputy Judge Pilgerstorfer KC, warned that documents like this are likely to be rejected in future and that other case management powers could be used.
The case involved a litigant in person, not an HR adviser, but the message applies directly to anyone preparing tribunal paperwork for a client. Unchecked AI output is not just unhelpful; it can lead the tribunal to disregard a document entirely and leave the party exposed to case management consequences, wasted time and arguments about costs.
The CIPD Code applies to members; the common law duty of care applies to everyone.
Illustrative: an HR consultant helps a client defend an unfair dismissal claim and uses an AI tool to draft the ET3 grounds of resistance and a manager's witness statement. The ET3 cites a case that does not exist, and the statement includes details the manager never gave. Under cross-examination the manager disowns parts of the statement, the tribunal doubts the rest of his evidence, and the client loses a claim it might have defended. The client then claims the award and its wasted costs from the consultant.
HR consultant PI usually covers negligent tribunal support where that work falls within the professional services the policy describes. Representation work is not always included automatically, so check the definition and tell your broker if you prepare tribunal documents or attend hearings. Claims involving tribunal work often involve both an award and the client's own legal costs, so the limit and whether defence costs sit inside or outside it matter. See PI for employment law work for more on how these claims are handled.
Apex arranges PI for HR consultants who support clients through tribunal claims. A broker can confirm whether your policy wording extends to tribunal preparation and representation. Related: AI for employment law answers, AI in investigations and AI in HR consulting.
The EAT did not rely on a 300-page AI-generated skeleton argument that the litigant had not checked. The judge warned that such documents are likely to be rejected in future and that other case management powers could be used.
Some HR consultants do support clients at tribunal. Exercising a right of audience and conducting litigation are reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007, so check your position carefully and confirm your PI covers that work.
Only if the content comes from the witness and they confirm every line. AI can add plausible details that the witness never gave, which can undermine their credibility at the hearing.
Often, if it is within the professional services described in the policy, subject to the terms. Some wordings treat representation differently, so tell your broker exactly what tribunal work you do.
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.
