One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 12.4K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (1): THREE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES: YOU OWN THE WORK; AI IS NOT AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE OF LAW; IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE CASE EXISTS…
- MORE ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND “HALLUCINATING” CASE LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL GIVES A CLEAR VIEW…
- PROVING THINGS 296 : PROVING THE EARNINGS POTENTIAL OF AN INJURED CHILD: THE LOST YEARS CALCULATION CONSIDERED AND APPLIED
- EXPERT WATCH 70: EXPERTS’ FAILURES TO REPORT ON THE RANGE OF OPINIONS LEADS TO THEIR VIEWS BEING REJECTED: ESSENTIAL READING FOR EVERY PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYER, ANYONE WHO INSTRUCTS AN EXPERT (AND ANY EXPERT…)
- WEBINAR ON PERIODICAL PAYMENTS AND PROVISIONAL DAMAGES: 9th SEPTEMBER 2026: USEFUL GUIDANCE, CHECKLISTS AND QUESTIONNAIRES
Top Posts
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Surely in the second case it would have been worth flying in an interpreter from abroad. It would have cost a great deal less than losing 4 days of a trial.