19/10/2026
π€βοΈ Using AI in legal proceedings? The responsibility still rests with you.
A recent decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Hancox v Sutherland highlights the risks of relying on AI-generated documents without proper oversight.
Acting as a litigant in person, Mr Hancox submitted a 300-page skeleton argument, almost 132,000 words long, generated using ChatGPT and far exceeding the tribunal's expected length. In a covering email, he acknowledged that the judge would not read it all and invited the opposing party to identify any errors or inaccuracies before the hearing.
The Tribunal was highly critical of this approach and made clear that anyone using AI-assisted documents must:
β
Ensure documents comply with procedural rules
β
Thoroughly check content for accuracy
β
Include only relevant points
The judgment also raised concerns about AI-assisted witness statements, warning that AI may inadvertently reshape or embellish a witness' account.
As AI becomes increasingly common in professional and legal settings, this case serves as an important reminder: AI can assist, but responsibility for the final document always remains with the person submitting it.
π For more information, The Law Society Gazette has also covered this case in more detail here: https://buff.ly/1TgnLGh