Four practice direction changes from the 196th Update land on litigators between October 2026 and the next rules cycle, and none of them attracted much attention while the Business and Property Division rename took the headlines. Alongside them, the Civil Justice Council has opened a review of track limits and set out where it will and will not regulate the use of AI in court documents.
What else is in the 196th Practice Direction Update?
We covered the Business and Property Division rename when the instruments were made. The same package carries four further changes that went largely unreported.
Respect Orders under the Crime and Policing Act 2026 acquire procedural rules in Part 65, PD 65 and PD 2B, in force on 26 October 2026, with two new court forms still to follow. Part 75 and PD 75 are amended to improve the operation of the Traffic Enforcement Centre, requiring reasons where an extension of time is refused and providing that reviews of court officer decisions will usually be decided without a hearing. PD 49B loses the standard mesothelioma interim payment figure, which means the Master of the Rolls can update it without a rule change each time. PD 54D shortens the target timescales for judicial reviews of nationally significant infrastructure projects, following Lord Banner KC’s review. And PD 51ZE brings non-personal-injury road traffic bent metal claims into the mandatory mediation scheme, which is the change most likely to reach a high-volume practice quickly.
The instruments are made and dated. SI 2026/817 carries the rule changes; the practice direction amendments sit in the 196th Update itself.
Will courts require AI disclosure in court documents?
Not for professionally drafted documents, on the current direction of travel. The Civil Justice Council published an update on its consultation findings on 30 June 2026, and respondents broadly agreed that no AI-specific requirements are needed for pleadings, skeleton arguments and other advocacy documents prepared by regulated professionals, existing professional responsibility frameworks being sufficient to the job.
Witness statements are the exception, and remain the main area of disagreement. The concern raised is that AI may reshape or embellish a witness’s own recollection, which is a different problem from the one that arises when a lawyer uses a drafting tool. The working group’s stated direction is to hold the current position for professional drafting, introduce proportionate transparency for expert evidence, and treat litigants in person as a distinct question. A final report is expected later in 2026.
For firms writing AI use policies now rather than waiting, the practical reading is that the interim proposal for an AI declaration in witness statements has neither been dropped nor adopted. Treat witness evidence as the area most likely to attract a rule. The CJC’s work page carries the update.
CJC opens a review of track limits and the county court boundary
The Civil Justice Council announced on 8 June 2026 that it will review the operation of court track limits and the boundary between the High Court and the County Court, following a decision taken at its February 2026 strategy meeting. The review will assess whether existing limits and jurisdictional boundaries support efficient case allocation, proportionate costs and access to justice, and will recommend reform where it thinks reform is warranted.
It is at terms-of-reference stage and no proposal exists, so nothing here needs acting on. It is worth watching all the same, because track limits determine which costs regime applies to most civil claims, and a review at this level is the stage that eventually produced the intermediate track. The terms of reference are published, and an expression of interest notice has been issued for a data infrastructure and information governance working group member.
What happens to the Solicitors Act Part III consultation now?
The Civil Justice Council’s consultation on reform of Part III of the Solicitors Act 1974 opened on 23 April 2026 and closed on 16 July. No response has been published and no outcome should be read into the silence.
Part III governs solicitor and client costs, including the delivery of bills and their assessment, so it reaches every retainer in a firm rather than only the contentious ones. The working party is chaired by Mr Justice Adam Johnson, and the central issue is the distinction between contentious and non-contentious business, which costs counsel have described as no longer keeping pace with how firms actually work. Anyone who has tried to explain to a client why the assessment route differs depending on how the retainer was characterised will recognise the problem. The CJC page holds the consultation documents.
How much legal work can AI actually automate?
Research published by PwC and reported on 3 August 2026 found that 80 per cent of legal work faces meaningful barriers to full automation, at a point when most law firms are adopting AI rapidly. This is consultancy research with a self-published methodology rather than an independent finding, and it should be read as such.
Taken at its own valuation, though, it is a useful counterweight to the assumption that adoption rates translate into displacement rates. Those are different curves, and a firm modelling headcount against the first will get the second wrong. It sits alongside our reporting on how junior lawyer roles are changing, which looks at the same question from the other end.
The 196th Update carries four dated changes that will reach litigators between October 2026 and the next rules cycle, none of which got attention while the Division rename took the headlines. On AI, the Civil Justice Council has signalled that professionally drafted documents will not attract a disclosure requirement, but witness statements remain open. Firms writing AI policies now should treat witness evidence as the area most likely to be regulated.