​​An Update on Generative AI in UK Litigation and Disclosure [March 2025]​

‍By: Fiona Campbell, Director (Dispute Resolution), Head of Electronic Disclosure, Fieldfisher
Alejandro Gomez-Igbo, Director (Forensic Technology), Forensic Risk Alliance ​

Compared to industries like finance or healthcare, the UK legal sector has been cautious in adopting the efficiencies offered by Generative AI (GenAI). Whilst judicial and regulatory guidance evolve, some parties to UK legal proceedings are already exploring the robust and responsible use of AI for efficiencies in disclosure (whether court ordered or not), legal research and case analysis. Drawing on first-hand experience with new technologies in eDisclosure, the authors of this article offer a snapshot of use-cases and practical applications for GenAI in the current UK legal space.

The rise of Generative AI in legal practice  

GenAI is rapidly transforming industries, driving efficiency and automation in data processing, decision-making, and content generation. Whilst sectors like finance and healthcare have embraced AI-driven solutions, the UK courts (at least for now) have taken a more measured and cautious approach to AI-use in electronic disclosure, owing to the current lack of explicit regulatory, ethical and judicial guidance around AI adoption across the litigious legal landscape.  

In the context of UK disclosure (known as discovery in other jurisdictions), the use of AI must align with strict transparency, proportionality, and defensibility requirements, in line with recognised UK Disclosure Rules. A recent review of the UK’s disclosure regime lead by Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers has recommended introducing a new regime specifically tailored for high-volume cases, advocating the increased use of AI-driven tools to handle vast amounts of documentation effectively. This development underscores the potential of and openness to AI-assisted legal workflows, provided the technology supports, not replaces, human legal judgment.

Whilst there are broader ethical debates and an evolving regulatory landscape surrounding GenAI in the UK, including the Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill [HL], this article focuses specifically on GenAI's current (permitted) practical applications within the UK courts and provides practical use-cases for wider legal practice.

Judicial perspectives on AI integration in legal proceedings

The integration of GenAI into legal proceedings has garnered attention in both the United States and the United Kingdom, leading to a spectrum of judicial responses that highlight both the potential and challenges of such technologies.

In the United States case of Snell v. United Specialty Insurance Company, US Judge Kevin Newsom explored AI’s potential in legal interpretation. Whilst acknowledging AI’s capacity to assist in legal research and case analysis, he cautioned against the risk of "hallucinations" (instances where AI generates false or misleading information) but said with improvements "there's every reason to believe that hallucinations will become fewer and farther between". This illustrates a growing openness within the U.S. judiciary to explore AI's role in legal processes, even as they remain cautious about its current limitations.

Shifting focus to the United Kingdom, in December 2023, the UK judiciary issued its guidance on AI usage to assist the judiciary, their clerks and other support staff on the use of AI. In brief, the guidance says that whilst AI tools can enhance efficiency, judges and lawyers must exercise caution. They are advised to understand AI's capabilities and limitations, avoid inputting confidential information into public AI systems, and maintain personal responsibility for all outputs produced using AI.

When it comes to advocacy for AI adoption, Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, has been a vocal proponent of integrating AI into legal practice. He asserts that there is no substantial reason to resist AI adoption, provided it is approached cautiously and responsibly. Vos highlights that AI tools are not inherently problematic if users comprehend their functions and apply them appropriately. Vos also emphasised the importance of ensuring that significant court decisions remain the responsibility of human judges, rather than being delegated to AI systems.  

The UK is proactively crafting a framework to harness AI's benefits responsibly. The emphasis remains on ensuring that AI serves as an adjunct to human expertise, with stringent oversight to maintain the integrity of legal proceedings.

AI use-cases in the UK Legal Sector

Whilst the adoption of AI in formal legal proceedings has been gradual, the wider legal industry has begun to explore a range of practical applications across various areas. Below is a non-exhaustive selection of these use cases, including technical solutions explicitly designed for use in legal proceedings as well as broader tools aimed at supporting practitioners and improving efficiency within the industry.

Caveat: This is an independent article, and the AI software examples listed in the table below are not endorsements. Rather, they illustrate the practical application of AI in the UK legal sector based on known use-cases and legal workflows.

Considerations when using GenAI in litigation & disclosure

Caution and agreement in AI use for litigation

Whilst AI offers efficiency gains, UK courts stress the need for transparency, explainability, and human oversight. Legal teams must therefore ensure AI outputs are defensible and align with court disclosure obligations.  

Current UK Court stance on GenAI

The UK judiciary acknowledges AI’s potential but maintains a cautious approach, as highlighted in the December 2023 guidance (mentioned above), which emphasises that legal professionals must understand AI's capabilities, avoid entering confidential information into public models, and maintain full responsibility for AI-assisted work.

Comparisons to Technology-Assisted Review (TAR)

TAR was initially controversial but was judicially approved in Pyrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property Ltd (2016) after proving its structured and defensible methodology. GenAI use may follow a similar trajectory as courts become more comfortable with its transparency.  

UK courts acknowledge GenAI’s role in legal research and document classification but remain cautious about broader AI-driven decision-making. Explainability is crucial. AI workflows must remain transparent to mitigate legal challenges.

The growing role of AI protocols in disclosure

Legal technology bodies such as the International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) and academic institutions are working on AI governance frameworks to ensure structured and standardised AI methodologies. This is expected to increase judicial trust and adoption.

The future of AI in UK disclosure

AI’s role in proportionality and efficiency will continue to evolve, potentially becoming an essential tool in disclosure. Future adoption will depend on judicial guidance, regulatory clarity, and the establishment of clear AI governance protocols.

GenAI is rapidly becoming an integral tool in UK litigation and disclosure, offering efficiencies in investigations, document review, and regulatory compliance. Whilst UK courts emphasise transparency, explainability, and human oversight, UK judicial guidance suggests a growing acceptance of AI-assisted workflows, provided they remain defensible and proportionate. Much like the trajectory of TAR, AI adoption in legal practice will hinge on clear governance frameworks, judicial acceptance, and industry-wide standardisation. As AI continues to evolve, legal professionals must ensure its responsible deployment, leveraging its capabilities to enhance, not replace, legal judgment, ultimately driving efficiency while upholding the integrity of judicial processes.