The EWI online conference on the 19th June brought together a expert witnesses from wide range of professions with a formidable line up of lawyers and senior members of the judiciary to discuss the issues and solutions impacting expert evidence. Unsurprisingly, AI was discussed more than once on the agenda. But as usual, speakers and delegates came together to provide excellent insights and learning for experts no matter how long they have been working as an expert witness.
Responsible AI Requires Expert Ownership
Our keynote speaker, Sir Geoffrey Vos, argued that AI is already transforming litigation, arbitration and expert evidence, and that professionals cannot realistically avoid using it. However, experts remain personally responsible for their reports and must check AI-assisted work carefully, protect confidentiality, comply with the rules of the relevant court or tribunal, and ensure that the opinion remains their own. AI may properly assist with tasks such as summaries, chronologies, transcription and research, but it should not replace professional judgment or be used to produce an entire expert report. The key issue is therefore not whether AI will be used, but how it should be used responsibly, transparently and within appropriate legal safeguards.
Objectivity Earns the Court’s Trust
This year’s Lessons from the Courts panel emphasised that expert witnesses must maintain independence, objectivity and an overriding duty to assist the court, rather than advocate for the instructing party. Speakers warned that credibility is lost when experts stray beyond their expertise, rely too heavily on legal teams, fail to consider both sides’ evidence, become argumentative, or allow solicitors to interfere with joint statements. The panel also highlighted growing judicial concern about partisanship, professional expert witnesses, complex evidence, inconsistent guidance and privilege issues, while stressing that concise, transparent, balanced evidence and sensible concessions are key to gaining the court’s trust.
Credibility Depends on Independence, Clarity and Control
The next panel session bringing together experts and lawyers focused on how expert witnesses can maintain credibility and impact by preserving independence, avoiding advocacy, and presenting balanced, well-reasoned opinions. The panel emphasised the importance of staying “in the middle of the road”, making appropriate concessions, addressing alternative factual scenarios, and keeping reports clear, structured and accessible with summaries, numbered paragraphs, glossaries and visual aids where helpful. They also discussed the risks and opportunities of AI, stressing that experts must retain ownership of their opinions, check all AI-assisted work carefully, and consider confidentiality and disclosure. Finally, the panel highlighted careful use of social media and the importance of preparation, transparency and independence in joint expert meetings and statements.
Independence Must Withstand Pressure
The next session focused on how expert witnesses should manage undue pressure while maintaining independence, emphasising that their overriding duty is to the court rather than the instructing party. It reviewed key legal principles, CPR Part 35, guidance and case law, then used a practical case study to distinguish legitimate requests for factual corrections or clarification from inappropriate attempts to influence opinion, such as commercial incentives, urgency, or solicitor-drafted track changes. The key message was that experts must keep their opinions evidence-based, transparent and their own, document any concerning pressure, and ask whether they could comfortably justify any proposed change to a judge.
Change Is Accelerating for Expert Witnesses
The legal and policy update focused on recent and forthcoming developments affecting expert witnesses, including the fixed recoverable costs regime, transparency and open justice initiatives, regulation of unregulated experts in family children proceedings, and the growing importance of disclosing prior judicial criticism. It highlighted likely future requirements around the use and declaration of AI in expert reports, warned against using public AI tools with confidential material, and noted ongoing work by EWI on AI guidance, HCPC fitness to practise concerns, and the criminal declaration wording. The session also reviewed recent judgments, drawing out positive examples of clear, balanced, evidence-based expert evidence, alongside cautionary cases where experts were criticised for failing to understand their duties, overstepping into advocacy, relying on inadequate inspections, misusing software or AI-generated citations, and failing to verify their sources; the overarching message was that experts must remain independent, accurate, transparent, evidence-based, and fully aware of their duties to the court.
Making Complex Evidence Clear
The next session focussed on communicating complex evidence. Run by Expert Witness trainer, Beth Rigby, it provided great and thought provoking advice highlighting that complex evidence should be approached with disciplined planning, objectivity and transparency: experts must understand exactly what material they have, identify what is missing, focus only on what assists the court, and avoid wasting time on irrelevant or duplicated evidence. A robust opinion depends on a systematic, well-documented review, clear justification of any methods or limitations, and conclusions that follow the evidence rather than selective or biased interpretation; ultimately, the expert’s role is not to reproduce the evidence, but to explain its significance in a targeted way that helps the court resolve the issues.
Expert witnesses must remain independent, transparent and evidence-led to help courts reach fair decisions.
In the final keynote, Dr Kay Linnell OBE emphasised that expert witnesses have a privileged but onerous duty to assist courts and tribunals impartially, clearly and without cherry-picking evidence. Drawing on decades of international experience, she stressed the importance of early instruction, full disclosure, clear instructions, avoiding jargon, and maintaining independence—especially in joint expert roles. She warns that late instruction or incomplete evidence can seriously weaken expert testimony, and encourages experts to request necessary information, be honest about limitations or errors, and use their expertise to narrow disputes and support fair resolution.
Has this peaked your interest?
You can hear clips from our speakers in our latest podcast or if you are particularly interested in any of the sessions, you can buy either a particular session or the full conference recording in our webshop.