AI IN THE PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTS

EAT guidance on the use of AI in the preparation of documents

Overview

• The EAT in Hancox v Sutherland and others [2026] EAT 139 issued guidance on litigants’ use of generative AI in preparing tribunal documents.

• A 300-page ChatGPT-generated skeleton argument was deemed unacceptable for breaching the EAT Practice Direction 2024, obscuring issues, exceeding length, and lacking claimant verification.

• Users remain personally responsible for accuracy and compliance with the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 and the Practice Direction.

Risks and Limits

• The EAT noted increased AI use, acknowledging benefits but warning of unfocused, excessive, or misleading output and hallucinated citations.

• R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey confirms freely available tools like ChatGPT cannot conduct reliable legal research.

• Taiwo v Homelets of Bath Limited & Others highlights similar risks when AI is used by non-lawyers.

Key Takeaways

• AI is not a substitute for legal research or professional judgment, and unchecked AI output is unacceptable.

• AI-assisted documents must comply with procedural rules, be checked for factual and legal accuracy, and focus on central, relevant points without repetition. 

• Courts may enquire into checking processes, and sanctions may follow where checks appear lacking.  

Practical Do’s

• Use AI as a drafting aid for short, plain-English first drafts within page limits and format requirements.

• Fact-check all assertions, including dates, names, figures, policies, and case citations, against source materials or advisers.

• Focus on issues and present only relevant, central arguments clearly and without repetition.

• Maintain version control and audit trails recording AI use, reviews, changes, and checks.

• Adopt an internal AI policy defining approved tools, permitted uses, mandatory human review, and prohibited uses.

Practical Don’ts

• Do not file or share unchecked AI output or expect the other party to find errors.

• Do not rely on AI for legal research or citations, or produce sprawling, repetitive submissions. 

Suggested Workflow

• Start with a human outline, use AI to create a concise draft, then review and edit.

• Manually verify facts against internal records and remove unverified citations.

• Apply correct templates and page limits, keep a review log, and obtain legal sign-off before external circulation.

Bottom Line

• AI can speed drafting, but the user owns the result and must ensure rule compliance and thorough checks to avoid scrutiny or sanctions.