already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

what could AI mean for legal services?

25 October 2016
Researchers at University College London, Sheffield University and Pennsylvania University have used artificial intelligence (AI) to correctly predict the outcomes of cases heard in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) with 79% accuracy.

AI is slowly being adopted across the legal sector, largely to aid with research and document analysis with the ultimate goal being improved efficiency and accuracy. Commentators note that AI is not yet able to understand the detailed nuances of a legal case, and the researchers themselves say the technology does not spell the end for lawyers. However, with AI able to accurately predict the outcomes of nearly 80% of cases more sophisticated applications appear to be on the way.

The cost of litigation continues to be an issue for many litigants, and the UK courts have shown a willingness to innovate to reduce the time and cost of dispute resolution, going back to the Woolf reforms and more recent developments such as the Shorter Trial Scheme. There are clear benefits to be had from using AI in the UK courts, but could we really be approaching a time where first instance decisions are made without the need for a human judge? Perhaps not in our lifetime, but only time will tell.

related opinions

Loser pays the winner's costs? Not when a statutory demand is served prematurely

The High Court exercised its discretion relating to an application to set aside a statutory demand and made a cost order against the respondent solicitors.

View blog

Brexit paper - data protection and the decision on adequacy

On 18 July, the European Union Committee of the UK's House of Lords published a paper focusing on the maintenance of unhindered and uninterrupted data flows between the UK and the EU post Brexit, and how this is achievable.

View blog

A Part 36 flavoured word of warning for failure to mediate…

In Marsh v Ministry of Justice (2017) a claimant who had succeeded in his personal injury claim against the Ministry of Justice was awarded not only costs of trial on the indemnity basis, but also additional costs under CPR 36.17 because the MoJ had refused to engage in mediation.

View blog

Good news for SMEs wanting to enforce intellectual property

The Intellectual Property and Enterprise Court (IPEC) is an attractive forum for SMEs wishing to manage their costs risk. This is because there is an overall cap on the costs that can be recovered from the losing party, as well as a number of phase caps.

View blog