AI and the Civil Justice System: Lord Briggs speech

AI and the Civil Justice System: Lord Briggs speech

In a recent speech, Lord Briggs of the UK Supreme Court delivered a clear judicial warning: AI will transform the civil justice system faster than the system is currently prepared for.

As Lord Briggs put it: “The key takeaway is that we ought to begin to think seriously about developing procedural rules and regulation to accommodate AI in advance, rather than responding piecemeal to technological developments as and when they occur, as we did with digitisation. And we ought now, before it is too late, to identify just what contribution to the rule of law is made by the human elements in the process, and how to preserve it from erosion.”

Here we highlight a few points of note from the speech.

A surge in civil claims from AI use 

We have seen that AI tools can now draft letters, summarise disputes, provide free legal advice, and produce draft legal pleadings. Lord Briggs predicts a “tsunami” of small to moderate value civil claims from litigants in person using AI-generated documents and obtaining basic legal advice through AI. 

He notes that in the hands of a non-legally qualified person with reasonable computer skills, AI platforms can be used to generate “passable Particulars of Claim from the user’s stream of consciousness description of their grievance” that would be sufficient to get the complainant through the door as a litigant in person. 

Whilst this may improve access to justice, it also creates a practical problem: the courts and judges cannot process and adjudicate claims at the speed at which AI can generate them.

Courts’ use of AI 

Lord Briggs highlights that it is, in his view, “inevitable” that AI will have to come to the rescue of court staff and judges in increasing their productivity. He notes that this has already begun.

The speech refers to a UK First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) judgment in which the judge expressly stated that he used AI in the production of the decision. 

In the case of VP Evans (as executrix of HB Evans, deceased) & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1112 (TC) [42]-[49], the judge explained that he had used AI to summarise documents (treating the summaries only as a first draft) and satisfied himself that they were accurate. He confirmed that he had not used AI for legal research. 

Lord Briggs comments that “the robotisation of the courts’ response to incoming AI-prepared claims is just going to have to proceed apace, if the civil courts are not going to sink under the burden of the tsunami.”    

A democratic choice about AI judges

The speech also emphasises that the question of what precisely courts are going to use AI for is ultimately a democratic question and not for judges to decide.  

Lord Briggs distinguishes small disputes (such as low‑value online consumer claims) which may be suitable for AI‑driven resolution, from disputes involving one’s liberty, home, livelihood, or children, where people are more likely to prefer a human adjudicator. He identifies the need for complete transparency about how far AI is assisting (or replacing) the work of human judges.  

The need for clear rules

Lord Briggs explains three ways in which courts can prepare:

1. We should start thinking now about the probable applications of AI. This means considering what litigants and courts could be enabled to use AI for, and how associated risks might be addressed.
2. We should consider the approaches of other jurisdictions. For example, Brazil has regulated judicial use of AI by requiring judges to undertake mandatory AI training if they wish to use AI products in their work.
3. We should consider whether the current system for producing rules of civil procedure is sufficiently agile to keep up with rapid technological advancements.

If you would like to discuss how current or future regulations impact what you do with AI, please contact Tom Whittaker, Brian Wong, Lucy Pegler, Martin Cook or any other member in our Technology team.  For the latest on AI law and regulation, see our blog and newsletter.

This article was written by Anusha Kasture and Tom Whittaker.