The Bar Council’s response to the CJC’s AI consultation: what it means for chambers
The Civil Justice Council’s consultation on AI use in court documents closed on 14 April 2026. The Bar Council published its full response on 21 April. The question before the CJC was whether the civil courts need new formal rules to govern how legal representatives use AI when preparing filings — or whether existing professional obligations are sufficient.
The Bar Council’s position, in most cases, is that existing duties are sufficient. But its specific answers on different document types have direct implications for chambers.
Statements of case and skeleton arguments
On statements of case and skeleton arguments, the Bar Council agrees with the CJC’s provisional position: provided the document bears the name of the barrister taking professional responsibility for it, no AI-specific rules are required. Barristers are already bound by Core Duty 3 (honesty and integrity), rC6 (duty not to mislead the court), and rC9.2(b) (only advancing properly arguable claims). Those duties apply regardless of the tools used to draft the document.
"The use of AI does not alter the fundamental position. Whether material is drafted by the barrister, by a member of their team, or with the assistance of technological tools, the barrister remains personally responsible for verifying its accuracy and ensuring compliance with their professional duties."
Bar Council response to CJC consultation, April 2026
The Bar Council also resists requiring disclosure of AI-assisted research. There’s no equivalent obligation when using Westlaw or LexisNexis — tools that increasingly incorporate AI functionality. The real risk is AI that generates content, including hallucinated authorities, rather than retrieving it. That risk is addressed through the barrister’s existing duty to verify sources, not through broad disclosure requirements.
Witness statements: a harder line
The position is different for witness statements. The Bar Council agrees that AI should not be used to generate the content of trial witness statements, and goes further than the CJC’s own proposals by arguing the same prohibition should apply to non-trial statements. A witness statement must be in the witness’s own words. AI text-generation tools are, by design, text enhancement tools — their use is inconsistent with that requirement whether the statement is for trial or not.
The Bar Council supports a declaration confirming AI has not been used to generate, alter, embellish, strengthen, dilute, or rephrase the witness’s evidence, and argues it should apply to all witness statements, not just those covered by PD57AC.
Expert reports: caution about a blanket rule
On expert reports, the Bar Council broadly supports requiring experts to identify AI use but raises four concerns about embedding that requirement in the statement of truth. A blanket declaration risks muddying the purpose of the statement of truth, may encourage tactical challenges over minor AI use, and would be difficult to apply consistently across disciplines. Its preferred approach is discipline-specific guidance rather than a universal procedural rule.
BSB rules on AI are coming
The Bar Council’s response notes twice that the BSB is aiming to provide specific rules on AI use by barristers and is “very likely to do so in the near future.” That is the clearest public signal yet that formal BSB AI rules are on the way.
The Bar Council’s response makes clear that current guidance already reflects the professional expectations courts will hold barristers to. Barristers and chambers should consider their AI use in practice and whether it is documented and defensible.