Artificial intelligence (AI) is no substitute for expert opinion, a senior High Court judge told Bond Solon's Expert Witness Conference. Responsibility for expert evidence remains with the expert, whether or not AI was used to prepare it.
Delegates representing over 80 areas of expertise attended the conference where the use of AI was high on the agenda. There was also insight into the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry, updates on the evolving risk of expert liability and the use of statistics in evidence. In addition, experts attended specialist sessions covering Family, Criminal, Commercial and Medico-Legal work.
Should experts be using AI?
The Hon. Mrs Justice Joanna Smith KC DBE gave the keynote address at the conference in Westminster on 6 November 2026. She is deputy chair of the Civil Justice Council's working group on AI. The group has published a report setting out a framework for the use of AI by legal representatives in preparing court documents.
Mrs Justice Smith said: “The advent and rapid development of AI has not changed, and will not change, these duties. The obligations of independence, objectivity, transparency and professional competence remain exactly the same as they were before the emergence of AI.
“The question is therefore not whether experts should use AI. Nor is it whether AI should be banned from the expert process. The question is how experts can use these tools responsibly, safely and in a manner consistent with their obligations to the court.”
A poll of delegates showed 45% of expert witnesses at the conference are now using AI to help prepare reports and evidence. Mrs Justice Smith urged them to treat transparency, verification and professional judgement as their guiding principles.
She concluded:
Her keynote coincided with the publication of the Bond Solon and Law Society Gazette Expert Witness Survey 2026. More than one-third of respondents use AI regularly or occasionally, mainly for research, administration, summarising and checking rather than drafting opinions. Their biggest concern is over-reliance at the expense of professional judgement, and more than 70% believe experts should disclose AI use in reports.
- 45%of expert witnesses at the conference are now using AI to help prepare reports and evidence.Source: A poll of delegates to the Expert Witness Conference 2026
- More thanone-thirdof respondents use AI regularly or occasionally.Source: Bond Solon and Law Society Gazette Expert Witness Survey 2026 (opens in a new tab)
- More than70%believe experts should disclose AI use in reports.Source: Bond Solon and Law Society Gazette Expert Witness Survey 2026 (opens in a new tab)
What can experts learn from the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry?
Lessons from one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in UK history were the focus of a session from Emma Price, a barrister of 5 Essex Chambers and Counsel to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. Data from the Fujitsu-built Horizon system contributed to the wrongful conviction of more than 900 people.
Ms Price’s session focused on Gareth Jenkins, a Fujitsu engineer who gave evidence in Post Office prosecutions. Jenkins has faced criticism for failing to disclose bugs, errors and defects, changing his evidence at the request of those instructing him and being unaware of his obligations as an expert. Ms Price stressed that the inquiry has not yet published its findings.
She set out four lessons for experts.
Understand your role: your overriding duty under the Civil and Criminal Procedure Rules is to the court, not to the party instructing or paying you.
Understand your instructions, including the scope of your report and whether you have all the material you need.
Give the full picture from the outset and revise your opinion if new evidence warrants it.
Give your own opinion because you hold the pen on your report.
How can experts manage the risk of liability?
Caroline Thompson, a partner at Withers, examined expert liability since Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13. In the case the Supreme Court ruled that experts are not immune from claims by their own clients. The risks range from judicial criticism and costs sanctions to regulatory action and negligence claims.
Her message was that good practice is the best protection and included practical guidance.
- Treat the retainer as a living document, with a clear record of scope, instructions and agreed changes.
- Stay within your expertise and be candid about its limits.
- Seek express permission before using AI and avoid non-enterprise tools that could waive client privilege.
- Check that your insurance provides appropriate cover for the correct period.
If something goes wrong, experts should notify insurers promptly, preserve relevant documents and seek independent advice. As Ms Thompson reminded delegates, instructing solicitors act for the party, not for the expert.
A clear message
A consistent theme across the conference was that although the tools and the scrutiny may be changing, an expert's duty to the court is not.
Delegate Maria Ameh, a clinical psychologist, said: “Attending the Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference provided a much-needed space to pause, step back, and truly reflect on the evolving nature of our responsibilities.