In partnership with
The main theme this week is the emergence of a concrete regulatory framework around AI in English civil courts. The Civil Justice Council has published a detailed consultation proposing that lawyers must declare AI did not generate the content of trial witness statements, the clearest rule-making signal yet from the judiciary. Alongside this, the SRA has authorised the UK's first deterministic technology-only law firm, and Thomson Reuters has publicly confirmed the depth of its Anthropic partnership just weeks after a sharp market selloff.
AI in Practice
Civil Justice Council proposes mandatory AI declarations for witness statements
The Civil Justice Council has published an interim report and consultation proposing that legal representatives be required to declare that AI has not been used to generate the content of trial witness statements. The consultation, chaired by Sir Colin Birss, Chancellor of the High Court, closes on 14 April 2026.
The proposals draw a deliberate distinction between types of court document. Where the personal truth of the witness is at stake (i.e., witness statements) the working group proposes a mandatory declaration that AI did not generate the content. For expert reports, the proposal is that experts must explain what use of AI was made. For statements of case, skeleton arguments, and other advocacy documents, the working group takes a lighter touch: no declaration is required, provided a named legal representative takes professional responsibility for the document. Administrative uses (transcription, spell-checking, formatting) are explicitly excluded from any declaration requirement.
For UK lawyers, the immediate question is how current workflows will comply with these proposals. AI use in drafting witness statements, whether for editing, summarising attendance notes, or restructuring content, is common. If the proposals are adopted, any use of AI to generate substantive content in a witness statement would need to be avoided or disclosed. The report also flags the particular difficulty of litigants in person using AI tools, noting both the access-to-justice opportunity and the risk of inaccurate material entering proceedings.
Multiple law firms, including Burges Salmon and Hogan Lovells, have already published commentary and are likely to submit responses. Firms that advise on professional conduct, or that have active litigation practices, should read the consultation document carefully before the April deadline.
Takeaways
Act: Audit your firm's current practice for AI assistance in witness statement preparation. The consultation closes 14 April 2026. If you have views, now is the moment to submit them or to track your clients' responses.
Watch: Law firm and professional body consultation responses; the final CJC report, which will inform any Practice Direction amendments. Expert witnesses face a separate transparency obligation that merits its own review.
Risk: If proposals are adopted, using AI to generate witness statement content without declaration could constitute a breach of the duty not to mislead the court and, in serious cases, contempt. The report is explicit on this point.
On your radar
SRA authorises England's first deterministic technology-only law firm: LawFairy Limited received SRA authorisation this week, understood to be the first firm built around a fully deterministic, rather than generative AI, model. Its system encodes statutory criteria into structured decision pathways, producing consistent, auditable outputs without relying on a language model for legal conclusions. It launches next month in immigration law, offering eligibility checks and some document generation at a flat fee. Why it matters for UK lawyers: this is a proof-of-concept for rule-based automated legal services at scale. It also tests the SRA's willingness to authorise firms where no qualified lawyer is directly reviewing individual outputs, which raises professional responsibility questions the wider market will watch closely. (Artificial Lawyer / Legal Futures)
Thomson Reuters confirms deep Anthropic partnership as CoCounsel reaches one million users: Following a sharp market selloff triggered by Anthropic's legal plugin launch in early February (a period some are calling the "Claude Crash"), Thomson Reuters disclosed that CoCounsel is being rebuilt on Anthropic's Claude Agent SDK, surpassing one million active users across 107 countries. Thomson Reuters shares posted their biggest single-day rise in 26 years on the news. Why it matters for UK lawyers: the story clarifies that the major incumbent legal AI providers are not being displaced by Anthropic but are building on top of it. (Artificial Lawyer)
LexisNexis integrates Anthropic's legal plugin into its Protégé suite: LexisNexis announced this week that it would integrate Anthropic's Claude Cowork legal plugin into Protégé, its generative AI product suite, adding automated contract review, NDA triage, and compliance workflow capabilities. Why it matters for UK lawyers: UK firms using LexisNexis products will likely see these capabilities surface within existing platforms, accelerating the pace of AI workflow integration without a change of system. (Artificial Lawyer)
"Vibe lawyers" and the litigants using AI to navigate court: An Observer investigation this week looked at unrepresented litigants building and using custom AI tools to prepare court documents and legal submissions, a practice some are labelling "vibe lawyering". The CJC interim report acknowledges the phenomenon, noting that AI tools are now being used widely by litigants in person who rarely have the skills to verify AI output. Why it matters for UK lawyers: the volume of AI-generated submissions from unrepresented parties is likely to increase, potentially affecting case management and the time courts spend identifying errors. (The Observer)
UK AI and copyright reports due 18 March 2026: Under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, the government must publish two documents by 18 March: an economic impact assessment on copyright and AI policy options, and a substantive report on the use of copyright works in AI development. The creative industries are strongly opposed to a broad text-and-data-mining exception, while AI developers want greater clarity on permissible training data use. Why it matters for UK lawyers: firms advising clients in media, publishing, or technology, or those developing AI tools, should monitor the 18 March publication closely. (GOV.UK)
Ad Break
In order to help cover the running costs of this newsletter, please check out the advert below. In line with my promises from the start, adverts will always be declared and actual products that I have tried, with some brief thoughts from me.
I am grateful to Wispr Flow to continue to support this newsletter. It remains a firm favourite of my current productivity tools. If you haven’t yet tried it, please do!
Dictate prompts and tag files automatically
Stop typing reproductions and start vibing code. Wispr Flow captures your spoken debugging flow and turns it into structured bug reports, acceptance tests, and PR descriptions. Say a file name or variable out loud and Flow preserves it exactly, tags the correct file, and keeps inline code readable. Use voice to create Cursor and Warp prompts, call out a variable like user_id, and get copy you can paste straight into an issue or PR. The result is faster triage and fewer context gaps between engineers and QA. Learn how developers use voice-first workflows in our Vibe Coding article at wisprflow.ai. Try Wispr Flow for engineers.
For Review
Interim Report and Consultation on AI for Preparing Court Documents (Civil Justice Council)
The full consultation document sets out the working group's analysis of AI risks in civil proceedings, its proposed approach to declarations and transparency, and specific consultation questions for response. UK litigators, costs lawyers, and anyone advising on professional conduct or expert evidence should read it before the 14 April 2026 deadline.
Read or listen: Civil Justice Council — judiciary.uk
Claude Cowork legal plugin — why I'm paying attention (Reed Smith — Viewpoints)
A clear-eyed assessment from Reed Smith of what the Anthropic Cowork legal plugin does and does not do, with a frank discussion of how it differs from established legal AI tools and where the real competitive pressure lies. Useful reading for any UK firm trying to calibrate its response to the Anthropic legal plugin launch without getting swept up in the market noise.
Read or listen: Reed Smith Viewpoints
AI update for 2026 (Slaughter and May — Horizon Scanning)
A concise regulatory horizon-scanning briefing covering the major AI developments expected across 2026, including ICO enforcement priorities, the Data (Use and Access) Act provisions, UK copyright consultation outcomes, and the outlook for the AI Bill. A useful reference for in-house counsel and private practice lawyers tracking the regulatory calendar.
Read or listen: Slaughter and May Horizon Scanning
Practice Prompt
Try the below prompt to respond to the CJC consultation. Ensure you fill in the details marked with {}. Remember to adhere to the Golden Rules and do not upload confidential or privileged information to public tools.
I am a {solicitor / barrister / in-house counsel} at {type of firm or organisation}.
Review the Civil Justice Council's interim report proposals on AI use in preparing court documents and help me draft a structured response to the consultation.
My practice area is {litigation / family / employment / commercial / other}. The aspects most relevant to my work are {witness statements / expert reports / statements of case / skeleton arguments / all of the above}.
My current position on AI use in document preparation is: {brief description of current practice or policy}.
For each relevant consultation question, please:
1. Summarise the CJC's proposal in plain terms
2. Identify the practical implications for a practice like mine
3. Draft a short response paragraph I can adapt
Flag any questions where my answer should be reviewed by a professional conduct specialist before submission. Do not invent facts about the report — work only from what I provide or what you know from the published document.How did we do?
Hit reply and tell me what you would like covered in future issues or any feedback. We read every email!
Thanks for reading,
Serhan, UK Legal AI Brief
Disclaimer
Guidance and news only. Not legal advice. Always use AI tools safely.
Recommended Newsletters
Below are a few newsletters that I recommend, for various reasons. Check them out!
