Lawyers should not have to declare when artificial intelligence (AI) has been used in the preparation of court documents, APIL has urged in response to a Civil Justice Council (CJC) review.
“A specific declaration to make it clear that a legal representative has used AI would be overkill, and undo the efficiencies that AI can offer,” said APIL president Matthew Tuff.
The CJC is considering whether new rules are needed to govern the use of AI by legal representatives, and has suggested an option to require a specific declaration of AI use in a statement of case.
“The principles of professional standards and regulations already hold the lawyer accountable for the documents submitted to the court,” said Matthew.
“So long as a statement of case bears the name of the legal representative who is taking professional responsibility for it, there is no need for further rules.
“Adding a requirement to declare AI use also creates a risk of satellite litigation in relation to where and how AI has been used, which would inevitably increase costs and delays,” he went on.
“The current rules and standards are sufficient for legal representatives. But when the court documents rely on content outside of the lawyer’s expertise, such as an expert report or translated documents, the experts and translators should explain if they’ve used AI.
“We agree with the CJC that the rapid evolution of AI means that it will become increasingly difficult to distinguish when AI as been used and how. But to introduce a declaration for legal representatives doesn’t achieve anything, and is in fact counter to the UK’s pro-innovation approach to legal tools,” Matthew said.