Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming part of everyday business life. Many organisations are now using generative AI tools to draft emails, prepare reports and summarise documents. Unsurprisingly, here in the Commercial Litigation team at Stevens & Bolton, we are also beginning to see AI used when clients respond to requests for information from us, their legal advisers.
While understandable, this is a trend that deserves caution.
In contentious matters, lawyers need facts. They need to understand what happened, when it happened, who was involved, what was said, and how decisions were reached. The smallest detail can alter the analysis, affect disclosure obligations, or influence the outcome of a dispute.
Generative AI tools are designed to generate coherent and persuasive narratives. They are not designed to give evidence. In doing so, they may inadvertently introduce assumptions, omit important context, smooth over uncertainty, or recast events in a way that appears authoritative but does not accurately reflect the underlying facts.
That can create difficulties from the outset of a dispute. Where a client provides an AI-generated explanation rather than a first-hand account, lawyers may need to spend additional time establishing what actually happened. This can increase costs, delay advice, and make it harder to identify the strengths and weaknesses of a case at an early stage.
There are also potential evidential risks. If an AI-generated account differs from contemporaneous documents or later witness evidence, questions may arise as to accuracy, reliability and how the account was prepared.
The most effective approach remains the simplest one. When seeking legal advice, we recommend that clients provide their own account of events, together with the relevant contemporaneous documents. If AI is used as an organisational tool, for example to collate materials or identify relevant communications, that may be helpful. However, it should not replace the client's own factual instructions.
As AI becomes more embedded in business processes, its role in disputes will continue to evolve. For now, however, there is a clear distinction between information gathering and legal instruction. When lawyers are trying to establish the facts, the unfiltered version is usually the most valuable one.
Therefore, whilst AI can be a useful assistant, it should not become the narrator of your dispute. Your lawyers need the facts as you see them, not an AI-generated interpretation of them.
