TL;DR:
- High Court judge rules solicitor requesting AI-generated expert report committed “gross breach of duty”
- 14% of expert witnesses willing to accept AI-generated draft reports from solicitors
- Updated judicial AI guidance permits judges to use private ChatGPT for case familiarisation, not legal research
A High Court judge has issued a stern warning on artificial intelligence use in legal proceedings, ruling that a solicitor who insisted on providing an AI-generated expert report committed a gross breach of professional duty.
Expert Witness Survey Findings
The latest Bond Solon Expert Witness Survey, produced in conjunction with the Law Gazette, revealed that an expert witness was asked by a solicitor to accept an instruction where the solicitor insisted on providing them with a draft AI-generated expert report for the case.
Mr Justice Waksman, head of the Construction and Technology Court, told the Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference: “That to my mind is a gross breach of duty on the part of the solicitor.”
Expert Willingness Raises Concerns
Waksman expressed particular concern that 14% of experts surveyed indicated willingness to accept instructions on the same basis. “I cannot see how that can be appropriate conduct on the part of the expert, even if they’re doing it to avoid a row with the solicitor and they intend to dispose of the draft report soon afterwards,” Waksman stated.
Judicial AI Guidance Updated
The conference heard that judges were issued with updated AI guidance last week. Judges are not prohibited from using AI and have access to their own private version of ChatGPT 365, where prompts and information are not publicly accessible.
“If we wanted to use AI to summarise expert reports to introduce ourselves to expert issues in the case, there is no problem about leakage of information,” Waksman explained. Judges have no duty to disclose AI use, as it is deemed analogous to using a judicial assistant.
Clear Boundaries for AI Use
However, Waksman warned against using AI for legal research or analysis, highlighting the danger of “hallucinations, which have already occurred where fake legal precedents have been cited in some cases.”
The senior judge emphasised that experts should “steer clear” of using AI “to answer the questions that is your job to answer. As soon as you do that, you compromise your independence.”
The guidance underscores that whilst AI may serve as a familiarisation tool, “the ultimate product—the judgment—must be that of the judge alone.”
Source: Law Gazette