TMT analysis: As the deployment of AI systems becomes more widespread, acceptable use policies (AUPs) are emerging as a critical mechanism for ensuring compliance with regulatory frameworks like the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (EU AI Act). Barry Scannell and Leo Moore, partners at William Fry discuss why AUPs are required, the challenges posed by them, enforcement, the rile of governments and self-regulation, as well as emerging norms and policy proposals.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is everywhere, and, like many large-scale technological changes, it is often misunderstood and has divided opinion. The reality is that the fundamental elements of AI can be incredibly helpful when it comes to routine tasks, data analysis, and number-crunching, all of which are central to many aspects of continuous improvement (CI). This Practice Note will cover: • what is AI? • the need to exercise caution when using AI • beginning with the basics • using AI for data analysis/number crunching • how AI can help when presenting a CI business case For further information on implementing technology, including AI, in the in-house legal team, see: Legal tech for in-house teams—overview. What is AI? AI focuses on creating systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. These tasks include learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and understanding language. AI systems are designed to mimic human cognitive functions, enabling machines to perform complex tasks autonomously. Detailed background information about AI is available in: Artificial intelligence—overview. Discussion about,

This Practice Note discusses the role and importance of the boilerplate clauses in an agreement. It identifies the boilerplate clauses that most commonly appear in agreements relating to transactions and examines the approach that should be taken when reviewing or drafting an agreement containing boilerplate clauses. Lawyers work on a huge variety of transactions, but all of them will in some way involve written agreements. All of those agreements should contain some boilerplate clauses. What is boilerplate? There is no standard definition of what a ‘boilerplate’ clause is. Boilerplate clauses are often thought of as standard, miscellaneous provisions. They are commonly agreed with little or no consideration or negotiation, but this is a dangerous approach to adopt. It is more accurate to understand ‘boilerplate’ as a term used to describe the clauses that are included in an agreement to deal with the mechanics of how it works and those legal points that are relevant to most transactions. They are generally found at the beginning and the end of an agreement. As a boilerplate clause will deal with

Following the 2008 financial crisis and a number of high-profile corporate failures, there has been increased focus in recent years on the role of corporate culture in delivering long-term business and economic success. One manifestation of this was the Report on Culture and the Role of Boards punished by the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) in July 2016 (FRC Culture Report). The FRC Culture Report included a number of recommendations on how boards can promote a healthy culture within their companies. This Practice Note considers the role of boards and other bodies in shaping corporate culture, including best practice guidance issued by the FRC and others. For further details on the role of culture in financial services firms, see Practice Note: FCA supervisory and enforcement focus on culture. UKCG Code The UK Corporate Governance Code (UKCG Code) is administered by the FRC and applies to companies with a listing of equity shares in the equity shares (commercial companies) category or the closed-ended investment funds category, regardless of where the company is incorporated . For further

Documentary evidence is essential to the resolution of disputes in international arbitration. It is widely recognised as being of greater significance, and is often given greater weight by arbitral tribunals, than any other form of evidence. Differences between document production in litigation and arbitration One of the core principles underlying arbitration is that the procedure of the arbitration should be flexible and be determined by the parties and, where they cannot agree, by the tribunal. This is, for example, set out in section 34(1) of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) which states that it shall be for the tribunal to decide all procedural and evidential matters, subject to the right of the parties to agree any matter. Procedural and evidential matters are stated in AA 1996, s 34(2)(d) and (f) to include what documents if any should be disclosed, when they should be disclosed and whether any strict rules of evidence should be applied. In practice, even in an arbitration in England between English parties, document production is unlikely to follow the

This Practice Note considers the potentially broad role of in-house legal counsel in international arbitration proceedings and related matters. The Practice Note is written with the aim of providing guidance to in-house counsel directly (although as a matter of style we refer to such lawyers objectively in the text).The Practice Note should also be useful for practitioners who are working with in-house counsel and/or want to better understand the latter’s role in the arbitral process. It is also worth noting that some of the practical guidance provided may be relevant where the relevant method of dispute resolution is, for example, litigation or mediation. While the Practice Note focuses on the role of such counsel with respect to international commercial arbitration, the discussion and guidance provided may also be relevant to in-house lawyers involved with international investment arbitration (or investor-state dispute resolution), particularly from the point of view of investors. The following introductory Practice Notes may be useful: Arbitration—new starter guide, Arbitration—an introduction to the key features

The term 'learning and development' (L&D) is commonly used instead of ‘training’ to reflect the fact that people learn in a variety of ways and not solely by attending training courses. L&D covers any opportunity for learning within the firm. It includes, but is not limited to: • attending training courses • completing online tutorials • watching webinars • on-the-job coaching • mentoring • reading • researching Regulatory requirements The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) requires solicitors and registered lawyers to maintain their competence to carry out their role. For more information about the SRA’s continuing competence regime, see Practice Note: The continuing competence regime. Firms that have, or are working towards, accreditation for Lexcel, the Law Society’s voluntary practice management standard, are required to have an L&D policy covering. You should also consider any other accreditation schemes that you may be a member of. There may be other employees within the firm with professional qualifications and whose governing bodies require them to undertake continuing professional development, eg those in

EU law analysis: Gianluigi Marino, partner of Osborne Clarke, Italy, considers the role of the European Artificial Intelligence (AI) Office, in particular, regarding general purpose AI models.

Arbitration analysis: The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has delivered a new chapter in an almost 18 years old judicial saga stemming from an arbitral award issued in 1993, ordering the Albanian Government to pay 48,239,000,000 Italian Lira, plus interest to Iliria SRL On 11 March 1998, Iliria initiated proceedings before the Tirana Court of Appeal to enforce the award in Albania. However, Iliria’s attempts to enforce the arbitral award faced legal challenges, procedural disputes, and extensive delays, spanning nearly two decades. Iliria pursued various appeals, but the Albanian courts consistently ruled against Iliria, culminating in the dismissal of its second constitutional appeal on 22 December 2015. In its judgment dated 5 March 2024, the ECtHR concluded that this delay constituted a violation of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), upholding the fundamental right to a fair trial. Written by Sara Nadeau-Seguin, partner at Teynier Pic.

Basic function of the Ombudsman The Ombudsman provides an independent complaints route where a person says that a public body has caused injustice or hardship through maladministration, service failure or other administrative fault. In planning matters, the Ombudsman is concerned with the way in which a planning function was carried out. It is not a planning appeal body and does not decide whether planning permission should have been granted or refused. The key question is usually whether the problem lies in administrative fault, rather than disagreement with the planning merits. This Practice Note is concerned with complaints about the exercise of local planning functions by local authorities, including planning applications, enforcement, publicity, consultation, committee procedure, delegated decisions, planning advice and complaints handling. It does not deal in detail with complaints about other bodies involved in the planning process, such as central government departments or the Planning Inspectorate. Who is the Ombudsman? For the purposes of this Practice Note, references to the ‘Ombudsman’ mean the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO)

This Practice Note provides an overview of the role of the Pensions Regulator (TPR). For information on the role of TPR specifically in relation to public sector pension schemes, see Practice Note: The role of the Pensions Regulator in respect of public sector schemes. Background to the role TPR, an executive non-departmental public body of the Department for Work and Pensions, is the UK regulator for work-based pension schemes. The post of TPR was created on 6 April 2005 by the Pensions Act 2004 (PeA 2004), s 1 and replaced the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (otherwise known as OPRA), the previous pensions regulatory body. The role of TPR and its powers are, however, much wider in scope than those of its predecessor. The term 'work-based pension scheme' is defined in PeA 2004, s 5(3) as meaning: • an occupational pension scheme • a personal pension scheme where 'direct payment arrangements' exist in respect of one or more members of the scheme who are employees, or • a stakeholder pension scheme For

The Pensions Regulator (also known as TPR) is the statutory body that regulates occupational pension schemes with a view to (among other things) protecting members' benefits, minimising claims on the Pension Protection Fund, and promoting and improving the understanding of the good administration of work-based pension schemes. The Regulator’s remit extends to public service schemes in the UK. The Regulator provides information, education and support to help scheme managers, pension boards, administrators, employers and others to comply with applicable legislation with the added objective of following best practice. The Regulator works with scheme advisory boards to ensure that its message reaches the broadest audience. Where it deems it necessary, the Regulator has stated that it is prepared to use its powers against public service pension schemes. Commenting on the specifics of such instances is outside the scope of this Practice Note. However, the Regulator has confirmed that it has used its powers in the public service pension scheme space. This Practice