Record AI use alongside expert evidence

Legal Futures reported that the Civil Justice Council recommended declaring the use of AI in preparing witness statements and expert reports to the court. Law Society Gazette, top stories later reported that an interim deputy of the Business and Property Division urged expert witnesses to start disclosing AI use before new rules mandate transparency.

The move matters because court procedure is becoming part of the economic case for AI-assisted legal work. Courts, enforcement and incentives partly decide which effect dominates: cheaper production can expand access to litigation, but procedural demands can also impose new obligations on the people and firms using AI. A declaration requirement makes AI use visible at the point where expert evidence enters the process. That gives courts a defined fact on which to build scrutiny, and gives parties an incentive to account for how evidence was prepared rather than treating the tool as irrelevant to the proceeding.

The recommendation establishes that the Civil Justice Council has called for disclosure of AI use in witness statements and expert reports. The later warning establishes that an interim deputy of the Business and Property Division wants experts to disclose that use before mandatory rules arrive. Neither establishes that a universal court requirement is already in force, that every expert witness is complying, or that disclosure has changed litigation spending or the supply of legal work. The stronger reading would require an issued rule, a court applying it, and an observable consequence for evidence or conduct. Until then, the event shows institutional movement toward transparency, not a measured effect on the market or on the reliability of expert evidence.

The next fact to watch is the publication of the rules that Law Society Gazette, top stories says will mandate transparency. The confirming event would be a court applying those rules to a witness statement or expert report and specifying what disclosure is required. A decision that links non-disclosure or inadequate explanation to a procedural consequence would show that enforcement is shaping AI use rather than merely recording it. We will treat the rule and its first application as the point at which a recommendation becomes an operating incentive.