Judicial AI guidance raises important questions about how technology supports the preparation and assessment of expert evidence. For solicitors and medical experts, the practical challenge is to improve efficiency while protecting independent opinion and sensitive information.

What has the judiciary announced?

On 9 October 2026, the judiciary published its position statement on judicial AI use. It complements the guidance dated 31 October 2025. The statement requires human oversight and approved tools with UK data residency, enterprise data protection and disabled web access. It also establishes central oversight of pilots and new uses.

Judicial AI guidance and independent expert evidence

AI in expert witness reports needs a clear boundary between software assistance and professional opinion. In civil proceedings in England and Wales, CPR 35.3 places the expert’s duty to the court above obligations to the instructing party. Practice Direction 35 also requires independent opinion, consideration of material facts and clear recognition of uncertainty. Technology does not transfer these responsibilities to a software provider.

An expert therefore needs to distinguish a tool’s assistance from their own clinical analysis. A system might help locate a consultation or organise dates. However, deciding what those events mean requires expertise, context and reasoned judgement.

Consider a record that describes pain after an operation. Finding that entry helps establish the timeline. It does not, by itself, establish that the operation caused the pain or that care fell below an appropriate standard.

Checking the evidence behind an AI output

The October 2025 guidance warns about inaccurate outputs, invented citations, bias and confidentiality risks. It also stresses direct engagement with underlying documents. These warnings offer useful context for anyone preparing evidence for the court.

As a practical safeguard, experts should check important dates, diagnoses and quotations against the original records. They should also look for evidence that challenges the proposed account. A persuasive summary can still omit a relevant symptom, alternative explanation or gap in the records.

For example, “not found in this bundle” should not become “never happened”. A missing record and an absent clinical event are different propositions. Keeping that distinction clear helps an instructing solicitor understand both the opinion and its limits.

How access to Alldoq supports our experts

McCollum Consultants’ experts have access to Alldoq for their medico-legal work. Its published platform information describes a workspace bringing medical records, imaging and report preparation together. This provides a practical setting for organising the material on which an expert’s opinion depends.

Alldoq describes UK hosting in ISO 27001-certified data centres, encryption, role-based permissions and activity logs. These controls support secure handling and traceability. They should sit alongside appropriate working practices and review of the relevant service arrangements.

Separately, ALLDOQ Verify’s published information describes AI-assisted record review with source-document and page references. Those references can help a reviewer return to the evidence. They do not remove the need to check context, completeness or clinical meaning. Access to Alldoq should not imply that every expert uses Verify.

Our emphasis remains on the expert’s independent reasoning. A structured workspace can support that work, while the expert remains responsible for the report.

Responsible AI use needs training as well as tools

McCollum Consultants’ 2026 expert witness training programme included artificial intelligence and information security. It placed these topics alongside independence, expert reports and courtroom skills.

For future instructions, a useful starting point is to agree which tools may process case material and who checks their outputs. Teams should also establish how they handle errors and explain any relevant limitations. These are practical recommendations, rather than additional requirements created by the position statement.

If your case requires independent medical expert evidence, speak to McCollum Consultants about identifying an appropriate expert. We can also discuss the support available through Alldoq.