The Civil Justice Council (CJC) Working Group, chaired by Lord Justice Birss, recently concluded its high-profile consultation on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in preparing court documents.

With the public consultation window having officially closed on 14 April 2026, the interim framework provides a roadmap of where the judiciary intends to draw the line on transparency—signaling an imminent move toward mandatory disclosure of AI use for expert witnesses under Practice Direction 35.

The Core Proposals: Shifting Toward Mandatory Disclosure

The CJC’s inquiry highlighted a growing judicial concern over “AI hallucinations”—where generative systems fabricate legal citations, facts, or scientific concepts. To shield the integrity of civil litigation from these risks, the proposed updates to expert witness declarations include:

• Mandatory Use Disclosure: Experts must explicitly declare within their report if generative AI tools were used during its preparation.
• Methodological Transparency: The report must identify the specific tools used and clearly explain the exact purpose they served—such as deploying software to sort or cross-reference expansive medical data records.
• Administrative Exemption: The proposals draw a clear line between substantive input and basic administrative support; transcription, basic formatting, or spelling checks remain exempt from disclosure.
• Uncompromising Accountability: The framework reinforces that regardless of whatever digital tools are adopted, the human expert retains sole, ultimate professional responsibility for the accuracy and logical reasoning of the report.

What Happens Next?

Major industry bodies, including the Law Society, have recently submitted their formal responses, advocating for a balanced approach that provides clarity without placing disproportionate administrative burdens on practitioners.

While the Civil Procedure Rule Committee finalises the official implementation timeline, the direction of travel is clear. 

Law firms and expert panels are already actively auditing their workflows to ensure compliance before these transparency declarations are formally integrated into standard practice.

The UKExpertMedical View: Human-Led Precision, Harnessed by Technology

At UKExpertMedical, we continue to invest in bespoke, state-of-the-art technology to support the handling, organisation and analysis of complex medico-legal information.

However, in clinical negligence and personal injury litigation, experienced, human clinical judgment and expert oversight remains crucial. 

The CJC’s proposals reinforce the importance of accountability in expert evidence, particularly as digital tools become increasingly integrated into legal and healthcare workflows.

To learn more about how our integrated systems safeguard your medical evidence from the risks of digital fragmentation, contact our team today.

Sources & References

• The Civil Justice Council (CJC): Interim Report and Consultation on the Use of AI for Preparing Court Documents.
• The Law Society: Official Consultation Response regarding AI Regulation and Civil Procedure Rules Updates.