FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Solicitors and law firms
The Civil Justice Council has proposed that legal representatives declare AI was not used to generate the content of trial witness statements. That matters because a witness statement must be the witness's own evidence, and AI rephrasing can undermine it, the case and the solicitor.
Part of: AI in solicitors and law firms
In short
The Civil Justice Council consulted from February to 14 April 2026 on AI in court documents. It proposed a legal representative's declaration that AI was not used to generate the content of trial witness statements, disclosure by experts of AI use beyond transcription or admin, and no new rules for statements of case or skeleton arguments where a lawyer is named. A June 2026 update said witness statements are still under consideration, with a final report expected later in 2026. Existing duties on evidence (Code 2.1 to 2.2) and not misleading the court (Code 1.4) already apply.
Litigators use AI to transcribe witness interviews, organise notes into chronologies, draft first versions of witness statements, summarise expert reports and prepare skeleton arguments. The efficiency gain is real, but witness evidence is different from submissions. A skeleton is the lawyer's argument; a witness statement must reflect what the witness actually remembers, in their own words.
The Civil Justice Council working group on the use of AI in preparing court documents was set up in January 2025. Its consultation was published in February 2026 and closed on 14 April 2026. The proposals were:
An update in June 2026 said respondents broadly saw no need for AI-specific rules on skeletons and pleadings, while witness statements remain under consideration. The final report is expected later in 2026. Until then the proposals are not rules, but they show where the courts' concern lies.
The SRA's warning notice lists Code 2.1 to 2.2 (not tampering with evidence or seeking to influence its substance), Code 1.4 (not misleading the court), Code 2.5 (court orders and contempt) and Code 3.5 (supervision) among the standards engaged by AI misuse. A witness statement is verified by a statement of truth, and a statement that does not reflect the witness's own account can undermine their credibility and expose those involved to criticism or worse.
The Divisional Court in Ayinde confirmed that the courts treat inaccurate AI-generated material seriously, making wasted costs orders and referring lawyers to their regulators. Skeleton arguments are not exempt from those duties just because no new rule is proposed: citations must still be checked.
Illustrative: a paralegal uses an AI tool to turn interview notes into a polished witness statement for a contract dispute. The tool smooths the language and fills a gap in the chronology with a plausible but unconfirmed detail. The witness signs without noticing. Under cross-examination the witness cannot support the detail, the judge doubts the rest of their evidence, and the case is lost. The client blames the firm, and the court asks how the statement was prepared.
The client's claim for a lost or devalued case is a civil liability claim that the SRA minimum terms require to be covered, and the closed list of permitted exclusions has no AI exclusion. Proving causation in a lost-litigation claim is often hard, which affects how such claims are defended. Wasted costs orders may or may not be covered depending on the wording. Any SRA fine, or the consequences of contempt, is usually outside PI because fines and penalties are a permitted exclusion. See wasted costs and personal liability.
Apex arranges PI for solicitors and law firms with litigation practices. A broker can review how your policy treats lost-litigation claims and wasted costs. See the AI in law firms hub, AI legal research and fake citations, AI transcription and AI translation of legal documents.
No. The CJC has proposed a declaration that AI was not used to generate the content of trial witness statements, but this is a consultation proposal. The final report is expected later in 2026. Existing duties on evidence and not misleading the court already apply.
The CJC proposals draw a line between generating content and transcription or administrative use, at least for experts. Transcription is lower risk, but check the transcript against the recording and keep both, because the statement must reflect what the witness actually said.
Usually, a client's negligence claim falls within the civil liability cover required by the SRA minimum terms, which contain no AI exclusion. Lost-litigation claims involve difficult causation questions, and fines or contempt penalties are usually outside cover.
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.
