FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Chartered legal executives
AI can draft employment tribunal claims, responses and schedules of loss, but short time limits and tribunal scrutiny of citations leave little room for error. A missed deadline or a struck-out claim is a familiar route to a negligence claim.
Part of: AI in Chartered legal executives
In short
CILEX lawyers in employment work use AI to draft ET1 claim grounds, ET3 responses, witness statements and schedules of loss, and some use AI to screen enquiries. The CILEx Code applies: outcome 1.2 on misleading the tribunal, 5.1 to 5.4 on competence, 5.12 on confidentiality, 6 on fair treatment and 8.2 to 8.4 on supervision. The risks are a time limit missed because AI intake recorded dates wrongly, fabricated authorities in submissions, and biased screening of prospective claimants. PI usually responds to a client's claim for a lost or struck-out case, subject to the policy terms.
Employment practitioners use generative AI chatbots to turn a client's account into ET1 grounds of claim or ET3 grounds of resistance, draft witness statements and prepare schedules of loss. AI also summarises disciplinary and grievance documents and suggests authorities for preliminary hearing submissions. Some firms use AI intake tools to screen enquiries and estimate merits.
CRL's AI position keeps the lawyer as decision-maker. Under the CILEx Code of Conduct:
Employment tribunal claims run against short statutory time limits, so the dates that start the clock must be identified correctly from the documents. An intake tool that misreads a date, or a draft that pleads the wrong claim, can lose the case before it starts. In submissions, the courts have made clear that fabricated authorities are serious: in Ayinde the Divisional Court made wasted costs orders and referred lawyers to their regulators, and said at paragraphs 7 to 8 that every lawyer must check AI research against authoritative sources.
Illustrative: an AI tool drafts grounds of claim from the client's email, which describes the dismissal in vague terms. The draft pleads unfair dismissal but not the discrimination claim the facts support, and by the time the omission is spotted, an amendment is opposed and refused. The client claims the value of the lost discrimination claim from the firm.
Tribunal witness statements are evidence, and an AI draft can add detail or certainty the witness never gave. Read each draft through with the witness and remove anything they cannot personally confirm. Schedules of loss built by AI need the same scrutiny: check gross and net pay, pension loss and any benefits against the documents, and make sure the period of loss reflects your instructions rather than an assumption built into the tool. Outcome 5.8 also means the client should understand how the figures were reached before they rely on them in settlement talks.
Tools that score enquiries for merit can reflect bias in the data they were trained on. A firm that relies on such a tool to turn people away without human review risks unfair treatment under principle 6. Where decisions with significant effects are made solely by automated means, the rules introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and in force since 5 February 2026 may also apply. Keep a person in the loop for any decision not to act.
A claim that a case was lost through a missed time limit, poor pleading or a strike-out is a typical professional negligence claim and would usually be considered under the PI policy, subject to its terms. The CILEX £2m minimum applies regardless of wording for CRL-authorised entities. Wasted costs and tribunal costs orders depend on the wording; see wasted costs orders and PI. Regulatory fines are usually not covered.
Apex arranges PI for CILEX employment practitioners and firms, and a broker can check how your policy treats AI-assisted claims work and costs orders. See the AI for CILEX lawyers hub, AI research for CILEX advocates, AI-drafted letters of claim and does CILEX PI cover AI mistakes?.
Yes, as a drafting aid, but you remain responsible for pleading the right claims on the right facts within the time limit. Check the draft against the full evidence and the client's instructions before it is submitted.
It engages outcome 1.2 and may lead to a costs order and a referral to your regulator. In Ayinde the Divisional Court made wasted costs orders and referred lawyers, and said every lawyer must check AI research against authoritative sources.
It can be. Biased screening may engage principle 6 on fair treatment, and solely automated significant decisions may fall within the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 rules. Keep human review of any decision not to act.
A client's claim for the value of the lost case would usually be considered as a professional negligence claim under the policy, subject to its terms. Any costs order against the client may form part of the loss claimed. Notify your insurer as soon as you are aware of the problem.
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.
