AI in Judgments: Where the Line Sits (and What Solicitors Should Expect)
Courts are exploring AI cautiously. Here’s how that affects submissions, bundles and expectations in 2026.
Judiciaries around the world are assessing how — if at all — AI should play a role in drafting judgments. For practitioners, the practical questions are simple: what will judges tolerate, what will they reject, and how should we prepare submissions?
The emerging line
- Administrative assistance (e.g. formatting or summarisation of public material) may be acceptable where permitted by guidance.
- Substantive reasoning remains a human function. Parties must be able to test reasons; judges must own them.
- Confidential material should not be sent to public models; treat it like any other protected data.
What this means for you
- Provenance matters. Provide clear citations and bundle references. Make verification effortless.
- Plain-English summaries help. Use them where appropriate to aid comprehension.
- Be ready to explain any AI assistance. If asked, you should be able to describe tools used, safeguards, and human review.
Submission checklist
- [ ] Authorities and pinpoints verified
- [ ] Any autogenerated text fully reviewed and edited
- [ ] Sensitive data never sent to public models
- [ ] Clear structure, headings and signposts
OrdoLux helps teams produce consistent, well-signposted documents with embedded checklists and review trails.
General information for practitioners — not legal advice.
Looking for legal case management software?
OrdoLux is legal case management software for UK solicitors, designed around accurate time capture, Outlook integration, and solicitor-friendly billing and reporting. If you're reviewing your tooling, you can learn more about OrdoLux legal case management software.