How AI is repshaping the legal system

On 4 February 2026, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, delivered a keynote address as part of the “Justice for All” series (which examines the future of the justice system). 

One area of focus was AI’s capacity to open a floodgate for claimants who would not otherwise have the time or resources to pursue litigation.  

Sir Geoffrey highlighted a significant shift in how individuals initiate legal claims – stating that AI is now being used by “almost every individual litigant in person and small business” as their first port of call, replacing the traditional route of consulting a lawyer. While instructing a solicitor or barrister may be beyond the (financial) reach of some individuals and small businesses, would-be litigants are turning to generative AI tools such as ChatGPT or CoPilot to “easily transform a mass of documents and personal information into an arguable legal claim”. 

The consequence of this, according to Sir Geoffrey, is that the justice system will see “many more civil claims because AI can create them free of charge, where previously claim numbers were limited by the availability and cost of lawyers”.  This represents a fundamental change in access to litigation – barriers of time and finance that once prevented claims are being dismantled by technology.

While this appears to be a positive step in broadening access to justice, it is likely to create problems of resourcing in a justice system that is already struggling to keep up. Sir Geoffrey warned that “judges and courts need to be ready to deal with an AI revolution that may vastly increase the number of civil, family and tribunals claims with which the justice system has to cope”.  So how can the courts keep up? 

Sir Geoffrey advocated for a systemic response, including: 

• A pre-action Digital Justice System that provides reliable legal information and advice online, and resolves disputes through mediation, ombuds processes, and AI-suggested solutions. 
• Technology-enhanced evidence verification. Sir Geoffrey highlighted that developments in quantum computing would “radically change online and offline security, and allow for far more sophisticated verification and authentication as well as the reverse”. Although he did not rule out the need for human witnesses in certain scenarios, Sir Geoffrey considered that quantum computing would make a “seismic change” to evidence gathering and validation and that, as a result, continuing to require every fact to be proved by human witnesses was “somewhat fanciful” in the age of quantum computing.
• Consideration of whether individuals can agree to machine-made judicial decision making, whether machines can be regarded as an “independent and impartial” tribunal, and whether there is an enshrined right to a human judicial decision. 

Overall, Sir Geoffrey emphasized that while AI will transform justice delivery, human judges must remain “front and centre of final justice decisions affecting people's lives”, as citizens (or, at least, today’s citizens) will not accept a justice system delivered entirely by machines.  While courts should not stand in the way of progress, human oversight represents a fundamental protection that should be preserved.

Finally, another challenge posed by AI-assisted claims is the risk of referring to cases to support the grounds or basis for the claim, only for the court or the defendant to discover that those cases (or the passages quoted from them) do not actually exist and have been taken directly from output by the generative AI tool. This could lead to litigants in person and small businesses bringing claims that, at first, appear to be arguable but, on closer inspection, are vulnerable to challenge by the court or the defendant, resulting in the claimant incurring costs unnecessarily. One solution might be for Sir Geoffrey’s proposed pre-action Digital Justice System to assist claimants in identifying AI hallucinations.