Association of Personal Injury Lawyers warns proposals from Civil Justice Council could increase costs and delay litigation
Proposals to require lawyers to declare the use of artificial intelligence in court documents would be “overkill” and risk undermining efficiency, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers has warned.
Responding to a consultation by the Civil Justice Council (CJC), the organisation said existing professional obligations already ensure that legal representatives are accountable for the content of documents submitted to court.
APIL president Matthew Tuff said introducing a specific declaration requirement would “undo the efficiencies that AI can offer” and add unnecessary complexity to the litigation process.
The CJC is considering whether new rules are needed to regulate the use of AI in preparing court documents, including the possibility of requiring declarations confirming whether AI has been used.
However, APIL argued that such measures are unnecessary where a document already bears the name of the legal representative taking professional responsibility for it.
It warned that introducing AI declarations could lead to “satellite litigation” over how and when AI was used, potentially increasing costs and delays rather than improving transparency.
The organisation said current professional standards are sufficient to govern the use of AI by lawyers, provided they continue to verify and stand behind their work.
It accepted that AI presents challenges, particularly as its use becomes harder to detect, but said additional rules for legal representatives would not address those concerns.
Instead, APIL suggested that where specialist input is relied on – such as expert reports or translations it may be appropriate for those contributors to disclose any use of AI.
The intervention comes amid wider debate over the role of AI in litigation, with proposals under consideration to require declarations in areas such as witness statements, reflecting concerns about accuracy and the integrity of evidence.
APIL said any regulatory response should strike a balance between maintaining professional standards and supporting innovation, warning against measures that could hinder the effective use of technology in legal practice.