Judiciary to take “cautious but positive” approach to AI use


Birss: Human oversight essential

AI offers “potentially transformative implications for justice”, the incoming Master of the Rolls has said, and the judiciary’s approach will be “cautious but positive”.

Sir Colin Birss stressed that the technology would be adopted to support but not replace judicial decision-making and be subject to strict safeguards and robust testing.

Currently the president of the Business and Property Division, he becomes Master of the Rolls next month.

He is also the lead judge for AI and last week issued a position statement on the judicial use of AI, complementing the published guidance on AI use for judicial officeholders first published in December 2023 and most recently updated a year ago.

The statement said human oversight was essential. “Every AI output used in judicial work must be reviewed, verified and approved by the responsible judicial office holder. The judicial office holder remains fully accountable.

“The judiciary is taking a cautious but positive approach to AI adoption, supported by pilots, evaluation, training, governance and transparency, to maintain public confidence and uphold open justice.”

Pilots have examined summarisation, transcription, redaction, writing in accessible language, administrative/leadership tasks, chronology-building, and document analysis.

“These pilots have also tested the reliability of AI tools and their outputs, the degree of human checking required, the handling of sensitive material, and the safeguards necessary for operational use. Lessons learnt from these pilots have shaped this statement.”

The statement said only approved AI tools may be used. Their features must include UK data residency, enterprise data protection, and disabled web access.

We reported earlier this month that, in a speech, Sir Colin acknowledged the role of AI in opening up access to justice, despite the problems that accompanied it.

More broadly, “the question that I want to think about when I’m the MR is how can we ensure that civil justice as a whole remains accessible for individuals and small businesses? That’s something of real interest to me”.




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog


Why law firms are getting AI supervision wrong

The profession’s response to AI supervision failures misunderstands the nature of LLM output – there needs to be for a shift in the culture.


Beyond the PII premium – rethinking risk

Professional indemnity insurance renewal is often treated as an annual pricing exercise. But it is also a chance to show how effectively you identify, manage and mitigate risk.


The AI governance gap in law firms and why it matters now

A third of law firms are already using AI tools with no formal policy in place to govern how AI gets used, what data goes into it, or who’s accountable when something goes wrong.


Loading animation