The Fourth Edition 2026 Technology and Construction Court Guide addresses artificial intelligence expressly for the first time. Its AI section is short, but it speaks directly to work that reaches the court: accuracy, disclosure, confidentiality and checking AI-assisted legal research. The Judiciary says TCC counsel and solicitors are expected to know the Guide and follow its letter and spirit.
The section does not prohibit AI. It places its use within the professional responsibilities that already apply to legal representatives.
The responsibility stays with the legal representative
Paragraph 1.6.1 says legal representatives remain personally responsible for material put before the court and have a professional obligation to ensure it is accurate and appropriate. AI can be used if representatives remain mindful of that responsibility and their professional obligations.
That is permission subject to responsibility, not a transfer of responsibility to a model, software provider or colleague. For solicitors, the SRA says AI use does not remove accountability for work and outputs; its Code includes duties concerning misleading the court, competent service, supervision and confidentiality. Barristers remain subject to their BSB duties, including duties to the court, clients and competent work.
Practical interpretation: treat AI output as work to assess, not work already approved. Before relying on it, decide whether it is accurate, appropriate to the task, consistent with the underlying record and suitable for the particular court document or advice.
Disclosure depends on context
Paragraph 1.6.2 does not say that every use of AI must be disclosed. It says whether, and to what extent, legal representatives should disclose AI use depends on context. It adds a clear direction: if there is doubt about whether AI use should be mentioned, that doubt must be resolved in favour of disclosure.
The Guide does not supply a list of situations in which disclosure is always required, or a standard form of disclosure. The assessment is case-specific.
Practical interpretation: consider whether AI materially shaped something placed before the court, whether non-disclosure could leave a misleading impression about how it was prepared, and whether the court or another party would reasonably need to know about that use. These are factors to help apply the Guide’s contextual test; they are not a list prescribed by the Guide. Where the answer is genuinely uncertain, its text favours disclosure.
Confidentiality applies to material supplied to AI
Paragraph 1.6.3 says legal representatives must at all times uphold confidentiality and protect the privacy of underlying data used with AI.
This calls for attention to the material supplied, the system being used and the circumstances of use. A tool’s convenience does not answer whether confidential or personal material may properly be entered into it.
Practical interpretation: before supplying matter material, understand the tool and its relevant settings and terms; follow the firm’s policies and any client or court restrictions; and consider whether the information can be minimised or anonymised. The Guide states the responsibility, but does not prescribe a particular technical safeguard or approve any particular AI system.
AI-assisted legal research and case citations need independent verification
Paragraph 1.6.4 requires legal representatives to independently verify the accuracy of research or case citations generated with AI assistance, and to be able to confirm that they have done so.
A plausible case name or quotation is not verification. The solicitor or counsel should check the cited material against reliable source material and ensure that it supports the proposition for which it is used.
Practical interpretation: verify that the authority exists, check the relevant passage and citation, and assess whether it remains good law and is being used in the right procedural and factual context. Paragraph 1.6.4 expressly addresses research and case citations. It should not be recast as a specific TCC Guide requirement for independently verifying every factual assertion or piece of evidence.
Paragraph 1.6.5: further guidance for judicial office holders
Paragraph 1.6.5 cross-refers to the Judiciary’s Artificial Intelligence (AI): Guidance for Judicial Office Holders, dated 31 October 2025, as a source of further guidance. That document is addressed to judicial office holders. Paragraph 1.6.5 itself does not impose an additional substantive obligation on solicitors or counsel.
What the Guide does—and does not—say
Paragraph 1.1.1 describes the Guide as practical guidance to be adapted flexibly to the case. It expressly says the Guide does not substitute for or override the CPR or relevant Practice Directions.
Paragraph 1.1.2 says parties, solicitors and counsel are expected to cooperate and follow the Guide’s letter and spirit. It also states that where parties act unreasonably or fail to comply with these requirements, the Court may impose sanctions, including orders for costs. This is the Guide’s general enforcement context. It should not be presented as a free-standing CPR rule or as an AI-specific sanction.
Read in that context, the AI section:
- permits AI use, subject to existing professional responsibilities;
- makes disclosure context-dependent, while directing that doubt be resolved in favour of disclosure;
- requires confidentiality and privacy to be protected when AI is used;
- requires independent verification of AI-assisted legal research and case citations;
- points to separate judicial guidance for judicial office holders.
It does not impose a universal rule to disclose every use of AI, prescribe a disclosure template, or set a technical checklist for every AI tool.
A short practitioner checklist
Before using AI on TCC work, ask:
- What will the system be asked to do, and what material will it receive?
- Can I protect confidentiality and privacy for that material in this use?
- Have I checked the output for accuracy and appropriateness before relying on it?
- Have I independently verified AI-assisted legal research and case citations?
- Does the context call for disclosure? If there is doubt, have I resolved it in favour of disclosure?
- Can I explain and stand behind the material put before the court?
The Guide leaves room for responsible use. Its central point is that the legal representative remains answerable for the work presented to the court.
For the BSB’s 2026 guidance on AI used by instructing solicitors, see AI in solicitor-to-counsel instructions: what the BSB’s 2026 guidance says.
Explore a synthetic matter
For a separate example of source inspection in a fictional matter, see the Eleanor Morgan synthetic-matter walkthrough. It illustrates a fictional product workflow; it is not a TCC matter and is not evidence of compliance with the TCC Guide.
Professional context. This article discusses legal-technology workflow and professional-risk questions. It is not legal advice and should not be treated as a substitute for checking the current procedural, regulatory and factual position in a particular matter.