Earlier this month a High Court judge issued a stark warning to legal professionals considering the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to produce written legal arguments or witness statements – to what extend do the principles apply to expert witnesses as well?
Table of contents
- Introduction
- What prompted this warning to legal professionals on the use of AI in litigation?
- Should the principles extend to other professionals, including expert witnesses?
- Have there been other instances of AI misuse in the courts?
- How can expert witnesses find out more about the implications of using AI?
1. Introduction
In a judgment issued on 6 June, the President of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, Dame Victoria Sharp said lawyers that use AI tools without proper care and consequentially submit false information to the court are breaching their professional responsibilities.
Sharp said such individuals could find themselves subject to admonishment, regulatory investigation, strike out and cost sanctions, proceedings for contempt of courts or – in extreme cases – be referred to the police for perverting the course of justice. “There are serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused,” she said.
2. What prompted this warning to legal professionals on the use of AI in litigation?
Sharp’s robust caution to the legal profession followed a Hamid hearing (otherwise known as a disciplinary hearing to address concerns about a lawyer’s conduct) alongside Mr Justice Johnson on 23 May. This related to two matters in which fake cases were cited in evidence before the court.
“The facts of these cases raise concerns about the competence and conduct of the individual lawyers who have been referred to this court,” she said.
They raise broader areas of concern however as to the adequacy of the training, supervision and regulation of those who practice before the courts, and as to the practical steps taken by those with responsibilities in those areas to ensure that lawyers who conduct litigation understand and comply with their professional and ethical responsibilities and their duties to the court.
President of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court
3. Should the principles extend to other professionals, including expert witnesses?
While Sharp’s warning related to two cases in which lawyers had used generative AI and failed to check the results returned were accurate before submitting them to the court, the principles are relevant to anyone operating in the legal system more widely, including expert witnesses.
The intention behind Sharp’s words was to highlight the “serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused” and expert witnesses too, play a crucial role in implementing the administration of justice.
Sharp called on those in positions of leadership in legal services, and regulators, to ensure anyone using AI does so with a full understanding of, and in compliance with, their professional obligations, including their duties to the court. She added that where there is any doubt in future, “the profession can expect the court to inquire whether those leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled.”
Likening the use of generative AI to having trainees assist with research, she said it was the duty of the supervising lawyer to always ensure that references are accurate and not AI ‘hallucinations’, in which AI delivers entirely made-up responses as if they are factual. “The risks of using artificial intelligence are now well known,” Sharp said. “Freely available generative artificial intelligence tools, trained on a large language model such as ChatGPT are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.”
4. Have there been other instances of AI misuse in the courts?
Sharp shared examples of other cases from across the world where various parts of the legal system had been undermined by careless use of AI. In particular, an American case, Kohls v Elison No 24-cv-3754 (D Minn 10 January 2025), in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, in which an expert witness had used generative artificial intelligence to draft his report.
Ironically, the case itself related to ‘deep fakes’ and the parties had relied on expert evidence about AI. In this case an expert on AI, submitted a report that included citations from academic articles that did not exist.
The irony was not lost on United States District Judge Laura Provinzino. “A credentialed expert on the dangers of AI and misinformation, has fallen victim to the siren call of relying too heavily on AI – in a case that revolves around the dangers of AI, no less,” she said. “The Court thus adds its voice to a growing chorus around the country declaring the same message: verify AI-generated content in legal submissions!”
5. How can expert witnesses find out more about the implications of using AI?
James McCreath, barrister at Wilberforce Chambers, will discuss the vital importance of double checking all aspects of your expert witness report, particularly where AI, other research/source material or someone else’s work has been relied upon at this year’s Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference on Friday 7 November 2025.