PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming many aspects of modern life, developing at a pace few could have predicted. Within the field of personal injury, however, one constant remains: the power of rehabilitation. For claimants, rehabilitation provides the opportunity to reach their full potential and live as independent and fulfilling a life as possible. For defendants, it can help reduce reliance and, in turn, the overall value of a claim. In this context, exploring how AI might enhance (rather than replace) the rehabilitation process is both timely and essential. Written by Pamela-Jane Riley, legal director in the Catastrophic Injury and Large Loss Team and Nicola Perrott, senior associate in the Healthcare team at Clyde and Co.

Employment analysis: We are already seeing AI being harnessed as a powerful tool in litigation, arming litigants in person with a ‘highly productive’—albeit sometimes very misguided-assistant. In this new world, should the parties be disclosing their use of AI? How does requesting, or volunteering, this information sit within the existing rules and principles? Tarun Tawakley, Rebecca Jobling, and Carly Mather of Lewis Silkin consider the issues.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This decision provides a significant judicial warning on the use of artificial intelligence in legal practice. In the context of a block transfer application under the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016, the court found that solicitors had submitted correspondence containing a fabricated quotation from the rules generated through AI and inadequately verified before being provided to the court. Applying R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey, ICC Judge Mullen reaffirmed that legal representatives remain personally responsible for the accuracy of AI-assisted research and submissions. Although contempt proceedings were not pursued, the judgment underscores the need for rigorous supervision, independent verification of authorities and compliance with professional duties owed to the court and clients. Produced in partnership with James Fagan of Radcliffe Chambers.

Law360, London: The country's first approved artificial intelligence law firm could be a turning point, making it easier for individuals and small businesses to get legal support. But the proliferation of artificial intelligence in the legal sector could also put considerable pressure on small firms and solo practitioners.

Law360, London: Garfield AI said 22 June 2026 that it has won its first case in the English courts after the artificial intelligence (AI) law firm helped a freelancer to draft materials to instruct a barrister to recover £7,000 in unpaid commissions.

IP analysis: This appeal to the Supreme Court concerned two UK patent applications filed by the appellant Dr Thaler. Dr Thaler had listed an artificial intelligence (AI) machine he owned called DABUS as the inventor when making the patent applications. The court was asked to determine three principal issues: (i) does the term ‘inventor’ for the purposes of the Patents Act 1977 (PA 1977) extend to AI machines; (ii) will the owner of an AI machine be the owner of any invention devised by it; and (iii) was the Hearing Officer for the Comptroller entitled to hold that the two patent applications would be taken to be withdrawn. The Supreme Court held, dismissing the appeal, that DABUS was not an inventor for the purposes of PA 1977, ss 7 and 13 and Dr Thaler did not derive the right to secure the grant of the patents to himself by reason of his ownership of DABUS. Accordingly, the Comptroller was right to find that the applications were deemed to be withdrawn under PA 1977, s 13(2). Written by Phillipus Putter (associate) and Toby Bond (partner), at Bird & Bird LLP.

Law360, London: Justice Colin Birss said on 5 May 2026 that he is improving his judgments by using artificial intelligence (AI) to check for clarity and consistency—but he asserted that having AI draft rulings in their entirety would be inappropriate.

Law360: The use of artificial intelligence by criminals and other evolving threats will boost demand for cyber insurance for at least the next decade, according to analysis published on 20 March 2024 by actuarial consultancy OAC.

MLex: Providers of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models including OpenAI, Google and Microsoft have had confirmation that the legal deadline for a final Code of Practice to help them comply with the EU AI Act will be missed and that they may not see it for a couple more months. The delay is due to efforts to align the Code with guidelines on GPAI rules, and to secure the support of major AI companies amid pressure from the US Government.

MLex: The European Commission adopted an implementing Act setting out the establishment and operation of the scientific panel of independent experts that will advise and support EU and national authorities on the enforcement of the EU AI Act’s rules on general-purpose AI models. The final Act includes significant changes compared to an earlier draft on sensitive matters such as conflict of interest, internal procedures, and transparency.

MLex: AI model providers saw the European Commission publish its preliminary approach to the EU AI Act’s rules for general-purpose AI (GPAI) as part of a public consultation meant to inform upcoming guidelines on this matter. The preliminary approach gives insights into the Commission’s current understanding of key concepts, including setting compute thresholds for determining whether a model is covered under the AI rulebook and when legal duties shift to downstream players. The working document provides examples for when a model is considered placed on the EU market, methodologies for calculating computational resources, and explains how a code of practice that is currently being developed is meant to support compliance with the EU AI Act.

MLex: Companies providing the most powerful AI models are seeing a new version of a code of practice to help them comply with the EU's AI Act. The new rules are less prescriptive and more outcome-oriented. Noteworthy changes include a shortened risk taxonomy, toned-down whistleblower protection, more clarity on when third-party evaluators would be required, and a suggestion to introduce a review mechanism, including for emergency cases.