Claimants using AI - Does this make lawyers redundant?
Does AI offer claimants all the tools they need to pursue a successful claim without a lawyer?
This is a question that will be tested increasingly in the courts in the coming years as humankind relies more and more on this kind of technology to find answers to many problems . It appears to offer instant solutions by just feeding in information to an AI tool. In terms of the law AI models can seem to provide instant answers to complex legal questions and provide litigants for instance and potential legal arguments to support a case.
I was interested to see a case analysis by Seth Roe of Wiggin LLP sent to Law Society members via the Junior Solicitors Network. Mr Hancox commenced work for the National Farmers' Union but was was dismissed from his job when he was still on his probationary period in 2020 -Mr_T_Hancox_v_Kenneth_Sutherland_and_Others__2026__EAT_139.pdf. The claimant brought several claims which included whistleblowing, unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. He brought claims against 4 individual work colleagues which were struck out in 2021 after the court found his constant Linkedin campaign involving around 145 posts prejudiced the possibility of a fair trial. The claimant appealed acting in person, filed in court a "skeleton argument" just 2 days being the preliminary hearing that was 300 pages long with a word count of nearly 132,000 words which exceeds the EAT PD suggesting 5-15 pages with a maximum limit of 20 pages. The claimant had used ChatGPT to prepare the skeleton argument arguing he needed to prepare the document quickly. The judge noted in particular the covering email that invited the respondents to identify any inaccuracies in the facts and any other inaccuracies given a very tight deadline of 4pm the next day. Basically the AI in effect had carried out the drafting and Mr Hancox expected the respondent to do all the checking for any inaccuracies or mistakes etc.
The EAT pointed out that a litigant in person (LiP) in the same way as an experienced legal representative was bound by procedural rules, checking documents are accurate themselves rather than relying upon the other side to correct, and confine arguments to the relevant points and arguments.
The article also touches on the increased use of AI by staff in drafting internal grievances in the workplace which follow a similar pattern to this case namely, they are too long and repetitive, list many overlapping complaints, focus more on the legal aspects with less emphasis on the facts and expect to be investigated fully and a prompt response.
What occurs to me is this is a good example of the limitations of using AI to compile a case based on legal arguments which will need a strong evidential underpinning. Quoting relevant law without a strong factual foundation lacks real credibility. The value of using experienced legal representatives is to advise if a case is arguable based on the facts and where the relevant law can be applied to support arguments, whether unfair dismissal, discrimination, whistleblowing etc. AI cannot create a case based on weak factual evidence however cleverly it interprets the relevant law.