What happened
At the Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference in Westminster’s Church House, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith – interim deputy president of the Business and Property Division – delivered a keynote urging expert witnesses to begin disclosing any use of artificial intelligence (AI) that generates or influences the substantive content of their reports. She referenced the Civil Justice Council’s recent report recommending a new rule that would require a declaration of AI use where it affects evidence. While no formal rule yet exists, the judge warned that failure to disclose could lead to rigorous cross‑examination and criticism. She outlined practical safeguards, including confirming with instructing solicitors whether AI use is permissible, documenting methodology, and ensuring oversight and competence. The judge emphasized that the core duties of independence, objectivity, transparency and professional competence remain unchanged despite AI’s rise.
Mrs Justice Joanna Smith addressed hundreds of expert witnesses at the Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference, warning that AI tools that "may directly or even indirectly generate or influence the content of your evidence" must be disclosed to both solicitors and the court. She cited the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) recent report, which recommends a rule obligating experts to declare AI use when it affects the substantive content of their reports.
The judge clarified that the proposed declaration should include details such as the methodology employed, confirmation of the appropriateness of AI use, and, where feasible, the specific tool used. Although the current procedural rules do not yet require such disclosure, she cautioned that failure to do so could expose experts to rigorous cross‑examination and potential criticism for lack of transparency.
She stressed that the fundamental duties of experts—independence, objectivity, transparency and professional competence—remain unchanged despite AI’s emergence. The judge identified key risks, including erosion of independent judgment, inadequate training on AI tools, misunderstanding of AI capabilities, and insufficient oversight.
Practical safeguards were recommended: experts should verify with instructing solicitors whether AI use is permissible, disclose intended AI use early in the instruction process, and document the AI methodology and oversight measures. The judge concluded that experts who understand AI’s capabilities and limitations, and who use it thoughtfully and transparently, will be better positioned for future court work.
Source details: lawgazette.co.uk
Why it matters
The guidance signals a shift toward formal regulatory oversight of AI in legal proceedings, potentially reshaping how expert evidence is prepared and scrutinised in UK courts. By urging pre‑emptive disclosure, the judiciary aims to preserve the integrity of expert testimony and prevent hidden reliance on AI tools that could introduce , errors, or breaches of data‑protection rules. If the recommended rule is adopted, experts will need to adopt new documentation practices, possibly invest in training, and adjust workflows to ensure compliance. This development also highlights broader concerns about AI eroding independent judgment, a theme echoed across jurisdictions as courts grapple with the technology’s impact on evidentiary standards. The move could set a precedent for other common‑law jurisdictions, influencing policy discussions on AI transparency in legal contexts worldwide.
The push for mandatory AI disclosure reflects growing judicial concern that undisclosed AI assistance could compromise the reliability of expert evidence, a cornerstone of civil litigation. By formalising disclosure, the courts aim to safeguard against hidden biases or errors that AI tools might introduce, thereby protecting the fairness of proceedings.
If adopted, the rule will require experts to maintain detailed records of AI usage, potentially increasing administrative burdens and prompting investment in training and compliance systems. This could affect a wide range of professions that provide expert testimony, from forensic accountants to medical consultants.
The guidance also underscores broader policy debates about AI transparency and accountability in professional settings. It may influence other jurisdictions to consider similar disclosure regimes, contributing to an emerging international norm around AI use in legal contexts.
Finally, the emphasis on safeguarding independent judgment highlights a philosophical tension between leveraging AI’s efficiency and preserving human expertise. The judiciary’s stance may shape how AI tools are integrated into legal practice, balancing innovation with the preservation of core professional standards.
Interactive Mechanism: How It Actually Works
Explore the underlying technology behind this development interactively.
Why can ethical evaluation not be reduced to one model score?
What to watch next
Watch for the Civil Justice Council’s final rule proposal and its incorporation into the 2014 expert‑instruction guidance. Monitor how professional bodies such as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Institute of Chartered Accountants respond, as they may issue sector‑specific guidance. Track any early court cases where experts are cross‑examined over undisclosed AI use, which could provide judicial precedent. Finally, observe whether solicitors and law firms develop internal AI‑use policies or training programmes to meet the anticipated disclosure requirements.
The Civil Justice Council’s final rule proposal and its timeline for incorporation into the 2014 expert‑instruction guidance.
Responses from professional bodies and law firms, including the development of internal AI‑use policies, training programmes, and compliance checklists.
Early case law where experts are cross‑examined over undisclosed AI use, which could set precedents for how strictly the disclosure requirement is enforced.
Potential legislative or regulatory actions by the UK Ministry of Justice or the Law Society that could codify the CJC’s recommendations into formal rules.