AI was a major theme at this year’s Bond Solon expert witness conference, where Mrs Justice Joanna Smith gave the keynote speech on AI. However, a subsequent panel discussion with IT specialists raised some complex issues.
The discussion highlighted risks relating to confidentiality and privacy as well as the likelihood of intense scrutiny of any AI use by counsel for the opposing party. Panellist Thomas Wood, director of Fast Data Science, also warned against potential GDPR breaches when using free tools such as ChatGPT since the information is going to US servers outside Europe, as well as being harvested to train future AI models.
The panel agreed self-employed experts should avoid free AI tools and subscribe to an AI model that guarantees the information will not be used for training future models, even if they only use AI to check grammar and structure. They noted, however, that most self-employed experts won’t have the technical expertise or money to invest in the more sophisticated subscription-only models.
Liverpool University’s Professor Katie Atkinson emphasised the need for training as well as regulation of AI use by experts.
Other issues highlighted included the risk of the instructing solicitor putting the expert’s report through an AI tool, and the lack of effective safeguards for those using subscription models. A psychiatrist warned that including AI prompts in a report’s methodology could breach client privilege.
Mark Solon, chair of Wilmington Legal, who chaired the conference, said: ‘The recommendations made by the Civil Justice Council deal with the use of AI in the production of court documents.
‘In reality, the work of an expert witness is a process, the production of the court report being just one element. Any guidance will need to look at the sequence of steps where an expert could make use of AI, for example analysing evidence, considering other experts’ report and preparing for discussions, and preparing for cross examination.
‘The ultimate test is whether the opinion proffered is that of the expert, and AI has not affected the substantive content of the report.’
