Practice Direction CA 16 on the responsible use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court documents in relation to the Court of Appeal and Practice Direction HC 142 on the responsible use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court documents in relation to the High Court introduce verification and disclosure requirements for all persons presenting documents to the courts.

A person is required to disclose -where directed by the Court- whether generative AI tools were used in the preparation of a court document and, if so, the nature and extent of that use. It is also expected that any content produced using generative AI will have been verified “under human control and supervision” this includes any references to case law, legislation, textbooks or articles.

Particular care is also required to ensure the authenticity of all exhibits, for example, images or recordings put before the courts. There is an explicit warning that “fabricated, manipulated or ‘deep fake’ material must never be used of presented to the Court”.

The general approach is that any use of generative AI tools “must be appropriate and undertaken responsibly and with due care so as not to adversely affect the integrity of court processes and the proper administration of justice”.

Further obligations are set out for legal practitioners who are reminded of their obligation not to mislead the court and their own ethical standards. Legal practitioners must verify “the accuracy and suitability of information” provided by generative AI and must inform their clients of their duty not to mislead the court when swearing affidavits and making witness statements.

Expert reports are also addressed in that they “must reflect the expert’s own opinion, expertise and reasoning process and shall contain a declaration at the start of the report” in respect of such.

In making the High Court practice direction President of the High Court, Mr Justice David Barniville accepts that generative AI tools may “assist in the efficient conduct of litigation” by reducing costs and enhancing access to justice but expects that any use “must be appropriate and undertaken responsibly and with due care so as not to adversely affect the integrity of court processes and the proper administration of justice”.