Require experts to disclose AI use before new rules arrive

Legal Futures reported on 30 October 2026 that the Civil Justice Council recommended declaring AI use in the preparation of witness statements and expert reports to the court. On 7 November 2026, Law Society Gazette, top stories reported that the interim deputy of Business and Property Division urged expert witnesses to start disclosing AI use before new rules mandate transparency, speaking at a conference.

The development matters because cheaper AI-assisted legal work does not determine its own market effect. Courts, enforcement and party incentives partly decide whether lower production costs lead to more litigation, more spending or a different allocation of legal work. A recommendation for disclosure, followed by a judicial call for experts to act before mandatory transparency arrives, puts court procedure inside that mechanism. The relevant question is therefore not simply whether AI can help prepare evidence, but whether courts and professional actors make its use visible and attach consequences to how that evidence is produced.

The recommendation establishes that the Civil Justice Council has proposed disclosure; it does not establish that the proposal is binding, that experts are already declaring AI use, or that courts are imposing consequences for non-disclosure. The warning from the interim deputy establishes judicial pressure to act before the new transparency rules, as described by Law Society Gazette, top stories, but it does not establish compliance or a change in litigation demand. The stronger reading would require a transparency rule in force, declarations appearing in witness statements or expert reports, and a court response when those declarations are absent or inaccurate. Until then, the event shows institutional movement around AI visibility, not a measured effect on the volume or cost of litigation.

The next facts to watch are concrete: the transparency rules referred to by Law Society Gazette, top stories, whether they take effect, and whether witness statements and expert reports begin carrying AI-use declarations. A court order addressing a missing or misleading declaration would show enforcement rather than aspiration. A sustained pattern of such orders, alongside a measurable change in litigation activity or spending, would support the stronger position that court procedures help determine how cheaper AI-assisted legal work changes the market. We should treat the declarations and orders as the test, not the recommendation alone.