AI in expert reports: what the Academy of Experts and the CJC are saying

The expert stays responsible

The Academy of Experts published guidance for expert witnesses on AI in January 2026. Its central message is that the guidance is not intended to replace human judgment. It also says that experts cannot divest responsibility or evade their duties when they use AI.^{1, 2} It applies to independent expert witnesses instructed to give evidence, not to advisory experts.¹

What the Academy guidance says

Check your engagement letter. Look for terms on AI use, disclosure or consent. Speak to your instructing lawyers about higher-risk uses. If you are unsure whether to disclose, the guidance says to disclose.²
Protect confidentiality. Many public AI tools do not keep uploaded material confidential, which risks breaching confidentiality and losing legal professional privilege. Uploading client material to unrestricted public tools is listed as prohibited.²
Verify outputs. Experts must maintain human oversight and check for errors and hallucinations. The level of checking should match the risk of the use.²
Keep a record. Note why AI was used, which tool you chose and the safeguards you applied.²
Do not outsource the report. The guidance lists complete outsourcing of the expert’s work to an AI tool as prohibited. AI drafting substantive analysis or opinion is rated extreme risk. The opinion must remain the expert’s own.²

Its risk table places transcription, with a review of accuracy, among the very low to low risk uses.²

What the Civil Justice Council is considering

In January 2025 the Civil Justice Council (CJC) set up a working group, chaired by Lord Justice Birss, to examine whether rules are needed for the use of AI in preparing court documents, including expert reports.³

Its interim report and consultation of February 2026 was specific. It proposed amending Practice Direction 35 at paragraph 3.3, the statement of truth for expert reports, so that an expert would identify and explain any AI used, other than for administrative uses such as transcription.^{4, 5}

The CJC’s June 2026 update on the consultation findings is less specific. It says the working group’s direction of travel, subject to finalisation, is towards “proportionate transparency” in relation to expert evidence. It also says that expert evidence raises distinct issues needing further attention.³ It does not repeat the February wording, so the exact requirement is not yet settled.

As at October 2026 the final report has not been published. The CJC anticipates publication later in 2026.³ Nothing here is a rule yet. Check the CJC page for the current position before relying on this.

What this means in practice

Read your instructions and engagement letter for AI terms before you start.
Keep the opinion your own. Use tools for support, not for drafting analysis.
Do not put confidential case material into public AI tools.
Check any AI-assisted output against the source material before you sign.
Keep a short note of what you used and why, in case you are asked.

Neither body addresses AI-drafted dictation reports specifically. If your report is drafted by an AI scribe from your consultation, ask your instructing solicitor how they want it treated and follow the engagement letter. Our AI report validation service checks such a draft against the original audio, which supports the verification step both bodies describe.

Sources

General information only. This article summarises published guidance and proposals and is not legal advice. Check the original documents and your instructions.

Related services

AI report validation: your report checked against the original audio
AI report review: read, formatted and proofread
Medico-legal transcription: your dictation typed by UK-based transcribers

AI in expert reports: what experts need to know