Expert Witness Journal Issue 69 October/November 2026 - Flipbook - Page 44
AI and expert evidence, assistance
is not authorship
by Stephen Hawes, MFPWS MCIOB MCIArb AssocRICS MAPM MCABE C.Build E
at Stephen Hawes & Co. Chartered Building Consultancy.
Arti昀椀cial intelligence is no longer something expert
witnesses can sensibly leave in the background
or treat as a professional taboo. It is already close
enough to the preparation of reports, chronologies,
document reviews and technical analysis that the
profession now has to deal with it properly. The
Ciarb Guideline on the Use of AI in Arbitration and
the Judicial O昀케ce AI guidance both point to the
same practical position, AI may assist professional
work, but the person using it remains responsible
for what is produced, relied upon and put forward.
There is, however, another side to this which should
not be overlooked. The risk is not only that an expert
may use AI badly. There is now also the emerging
risk that a professional may be criticised for not
using AI at all where a careful and controlled use of
it could have helped the case, report or matter they
are involved in. Recent industry discussion around
AI liability has raised the striking possibility that
professionals could in due course face negligence
arguments for failing to use AI tools appropriately
where those tools could have aided the work they
have been instructed to undertake.
That should not surprise any experienced surveyor
as we have always had to take responsibility for the
work that goes out and has our name on it. The
fact that a tool is quicker, more polished or more
technically impressive does not change that. If an
expert signs a report, the opinion has to be their
opinion, thus they must understand it, be able
to explain it, and be able to defend it when the
questions become uncomfortable.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
That is an important point for we surveyors, as if
AI can help organise a substantial bundle, test a
chronology, identify repeated references, check
consistency, or reduce the risk that a material
document has been missed, then simply refusing
to engage with it may not always look prudent or
in the best interest of the party instructing them. It
may put the surveyor, the appointing party and the
process itself at a disadvantage, however, that does
42
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2026
