In considering these recent presentations it is hoped that we will gain some insight into how the judiciary considers the role of AI, its capacity for decision making and ability to aid with the issues the judiciary faces in the modern world.
Sir Geoffrey Vos - Master of the Rolls
On the 30th of April 2026 the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, presented to the Judicial Institute for Scotland on AI in the Judiciary, and how to navigate delivering justice in the 'machine age'.
In his presentation, Sir Geoffrey Vos spoke on the foundations that he considered will ensure the judiciary are appropriately delivering justice in the machine age. Sir Geoffrey considered it essential to recognise the distinction between decisions which can be informed or made by AI, for example he specifically references personal injury damages cases that require algorithmic assessments on liability. Sir Geoffrey then stated that we must recognise the essential role of humans and that humans must take the leading role in the development of future legal principles as the machine age continues. Thirdly, Sir Geoffrey Vos emphasised the modernisation of justice should ensure that justice is readily available to all. Sir Geoffrey's view was that the demand for access to justice to all citizens may drive machine made decision making to occur, by encouraging certain routine legal matters to be assisted by AI to cut costs and time of legal professionals.
Lord Briggs of Westbourne, Justice of the UK Supreme Court
In his speech 'AI and Civil Justice: Preparing for the Tsunami', in May 2026, Lord Briggs discussed the impact of AI in rules and principles governing civil procedure. His views broadly aligned with Sir Geoffrey's, but he shifted focus to what he considered the three core concepts of AI in the judiciary.
Firstly, he envisaged and called for the development of appropriate rules and principles to make way for AI in civil practice. Secondly, Lord Briggs identified potential challenges arising from the AI revolution, for example adjusting to the "tsunami" of party litigants in small to medium claims abandoning professional legal advice in favour of AI. Lord Briggs considered that whilst this inevitably promotes greater accessibility to the courts this ought not to come at the expense of the reliability of the judicial system. Finally, Lord Briggs considered that even if it can be established that AI can appropriately assist in the judicial process, it is simply not democratic for legal practitioners to decide that AI will replace lawyers and judges on behalf of those who benefit from the rule of law. Part of this consideration emphasised by Lord Briggs was the, somewhat blurred, distinction between what the average person would be content with AI deciding and matters where human reasoning and compassion were of greater importance. Lord Briggs approach is that not all human characteristics can be replicated by AI and we need to be cautious not to allow AI to overstep in areas of the judiciary that rely on these human qualities.
Lord Pentland, Lord President of the Court of Session of Scotland
Shortly after Sir Geoffrey's and Lord Briggs presentations, Lord Pentland discussed AI in a speech to the Royal Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow on the 3rd of June 2026. Lord Pentland emphasised that the priority must be 'safeguarding the rule of law'. As part of that Lord Pentland stated he had analysed the effects of the advancements of AI, including the sheer number of legal professionals that use AI in their day to day work. This analysis, according to Lord Pentland, highlighted the multiple benefits of AI, including access to justice, court efficiencies and service delivery.
Lord Pentland did warn, however, that AI by party litigants, can be detrimental to their cases when their submissions are the product of a hallucination or incorrect output. Lord Pentland also voiced concern that there exists, in his view, uncertainty of the effects of AI on the fundamental rights of access to a human judge and that public confidence in the administration of justice must remain a cornerstone of the rule of law.
In summary Lord Pentlands stance is that AI is 'entering the courtroom to stay', but his contribution to the debate is more cautionary than Sir Geoffrey Vos, in particular emphasising how the imperfections of AI use may undermine the judiciary.
Is there room for AI in the Judiciary?
The judicial perspectives of Lord Pentland, Lord Briggs and Sir Geoffrey Vos demonstrate that AI undoubtedly has a place in the judiciary, but not without clear and principled limits. For example, it is important to recognise that the public reasonably have an expectation of human involvement in decision making. The judiciary and its decisions have significant effect on people's lives and wellbeing, even with the decision being made and issued by a human. When AI is used to assist with decision making, it is important that people are not left to believe that their wellbeing and access to justice is being left in the hands of AI without proper safeguarding by humans.
Separately, whilst generative AI has the ability to assist with party litigants' submissions the current abilities of AI requires human involvement to mitigate the issues of hallucinations discussed by Lord Pentland. As such, it is clear that AI as it stands will only be used as a supportive mechanism in the judicial process. Currently, we need to act with caution, but it is hoped that as AI develops, the risk of imperfection will decrease, and AI may be used to assist with things that we couldn’t possibly imagine in its current state.
