Scope and status of the guidance The available material takes different forms and has different scopes. It includes institutional principles and administrative guidance, guidelines and notes directed to participants or arbitrators, professional guidance, a report intended to inform the development of future institutional rules, judicial guidance, speeches, and legislation. Some material is expressly non-binding. It should therefore be read according to its stated status, audience and subject matter. Across the material, recurring considerations include competence and due diligence, confidentiality, professional responsibility, human oversight, non-delegation of decision-making, accuracy and reliability, fairness and integrity, party autonomy, transparency and compliance with applicable agreements, rules, laws and professional duties. Guidance issued by arbitral institutions The following table compares guidance and other relevant material issued by arbitral institutions. The CIIAM material is a report intended to inform the future development of rules and does not constitute an existing rule. Institution Instrument and status Scope and audience Principal guidance American Arbitration Association–International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) Principles Supporting the Use of AI in Alternative Dispute Resolution,

Scope and current applications of AI AI tools are used in international arbitration for translation, legal research, drafting, document summarisation and transcription. Other potential applications include data and case analysis, text generation, evidence collection and the use of AI to detect AI, including for evidence authentication. These tools may improve efficiency and the quality of legal research and may contribute to process improvement and the equal treatment of parties. The potential benefits must be balanced against risks relating to confidentiality, data integrity, impartiality, due process, reliability, fairness, the integrity of the arbitral process and the enforceability of awards. Many AI systems also present a ‘black box’ problem because the way in which the system reaches a conclusion or produces a response may not be clear or interpretable. Application Potential benefit Principal practical concern Translation and transcription Efficiency in processing material Reliability and accuracy of the output Legal research, drafting and document summarisation Improved efficiency and quality of legal research and text generation Hallucinations, other inaccuracies and the need to check output against

Practice Management analysis: While the most forward thinking law firms are ready to embrace artificial intelligence (AI), robots are not taking over the legal world any time soon. That said, its utilisation is undoubtedly proving valuable for law firms who are investing in it. Nicola Laver talks to Isabel Parker, director of legal services innovation at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, and Charles Kerrigan, partner and head of the international finance practice group at Olswang, about the latest developments as part of a special report examining the relationship between new technology and the legal sector.

This Practice Note tracks key legislative and regulatory developments, government initiatives and strategies, and consultations relating to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in life sciences and digital health in the UK. The rapid development of AI in life sciences and digital health has drawn attention to its potential to transform research, innovation and patient care, while also raising complex regulatory challenges. In the UK, AI intersects with a range of existing legal and regulatory regimes, most notably the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (MDR 2002), SI 2002/618 (as amended). The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is currently progressing a package of reforms to the UK medical device framework, with important implications for AI and digital health, particularly in relation to Software as Medical Device (SaMD), AI as Medical Device (AIaMD) and cybersecurity requirements (see News Analyses: Life Sciences UK—key developments in 2025 and horizon scanning for 2026—AI and digital health, UK medical devices regulatory reform—where are we now and what’s next for 2025?, A closer look at MHRA’s proposals

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.