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…
The post earlier today on the misuse of AI when defending an SDT hearing has led me to start a short series about the dangers of lawyers (litigators in particular) using AI. This is not an anti-AI stance. There is…
MORE ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND “HALLUCINATING” CASE LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL GIVES A CLEAR VIEW…
We have now looked at numerous court cases where lawyers have come to grief because of the use of Artificial Intelligence to cite law incorrectly, or simply manufacture false cases and equally false legal principles and citations. Here we have…
PROVING THINGS 296 : PROVING THE EARNINGS POTENTIAL OF AN INJURED CHILD: THE LOST YEARS CALCULATION CONSIDERED AND APPLIED
When the Supreme Court gave the judgment in CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) (Appellant) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent) [2026] UKSC 5 it was clear that there were going to be major evidential issues…
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…)
This blog has considered, many times, the (almost universal) failure of expert reports to comply with CPR PD 35.2 – that is the mandatory duty of an expert to consider whether there is a range of opinions in the matters…
You must be logged in to post a comment.