After the enlightening keynote address delivered by Mr. Sean West, Co-Founder of The Unruly Corporation, the second day of LIDW 2026 proceeded with the first panel discussion titled “AI, Authenticity and the Future of Evidence: Trust in a Synthetic World”. This discussion aimed to hold a forward-looking conversation on how the disputes community can preserve confidence in evidence and legal processes while embracing the opportunities of transformational AI.
Moderated by Mr. Gregory Mostyn, Co-Founder and CEO, Wexler.ai, the panel consisted of established professionals, namely, Mr. Richard Blann, Head of Legal, Disputes & Operations, Lloyds Banking Group; Ms. Sophie Nappert, Arbitrator, 3 Verulam Buildings Barristers; and Rt. Hon. The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President of the Qatar International Court.
Mr. Gregory Mostyn opened the session by highlighting the growing challenge of establishing truth in a world increasingly flooded with synthetic content, misinformation, and AI-generated materials. He noted that evidence has traditionally been the foundation of justice, but the explosion of digital information and deepfake technology is creating a crisis of authenticity.
Increased access to litigation with AI
Speaking from the client perspective of changing economics of filing claims, Mr. Richard Blann discussed the practical impact of AI from the perspective of a major corporate legal department.
He observed that AI tools are dramatically reducing the cost of filing claims, as litigants can now generate extensive complaints, demand letters, and legal documents with minimal effort and expense. On the recipient side of the claim, the corporation still had to examine the claim, assess the merits, and respond to it. As a result, he warned that the traditional balance between the costs of bringing and defending claims is shifting significantly. While this broadens access to justice, it simultaneously lowers the barrier to frivolous claims, a tension the panel identified as one of AI’s central challenges for dispute resolution.
Adding to the discussion, Rt. Hon. The Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd stated that a distinction had to be drawn between claims filed via law firms and those without. He opined that it was easier to impose ethical standards on law firms to tackle large-scale litigation. However, it was difficult to regulate self-represented litigants as such accessibility would be cost-free for them.
Ms. Sophie Nappert observed that smaller companies increasingly rely on generative AI tools to draft submissions and pleadings. This creates challenges for arbitrators who must separate valid legal arguments from AI-generated rhetoric, protect due process, and manage growing volumes of potentially unreliable material. She described this phenomenon as an emerging procedural challenge that arbitration institutions have yet to fully address.
Also Read: Why Lawyers Keep Getting AI Wrong and Why Human Judgment Still Matters: Insights from LIDW 2026
Disclosure and Data Challenges
Drawing parallels with the emergence of email evidence, Lord Thomas noted that the legal system has successfully adapted to major technological shifts before. He expressed confidence that procedural innovation can address many emerging challenges, and the legal system is capable of evolving.
Ms. Nappert argued that existing privilege doctrines are poorly equipped for AI interactions. She suggested that one key question was whether privilege should continue to depend upon communication between humans or whether communications with AI systems should receive similar protections.
Adding to the conversation, Mr. Blann suggested that confidentiality had to be maintained while using AI. He highlighted the exponential growth of digital information and noted that AI-powered search tools are changing expectations around disclosure. He warned that AI could undermine traditional proportionality arguments in disclosure exercises, and courts may increasingly expect parties to conduct wider and deeper document searches.
Regarding privilege, he noted that many lawyers did not fully understand privilege rules and may unknowingly create discoverable records through interactions with AI systems. Thus, there was a need for guidelines to educate people on what the use of AI meant in terms of privilege.
Also Read: Who Owns the Risk When AI Gets It Wrong? Confidentiality, Governance and Human Judgment at LIDW 2026
Institutional Response to Fabricated Evidence
Addressing synthetic evidence, Lord Thomas stressed that procedural rules governing admissibility and authentication must be modernised. He rejected the notion that proprietary technology should shield evidence from scrutiny and emphasized that courts must require litigants to reveal all the material that they used to create documentation.
Ms. Nappert added that this issue went beyond procedural rules and into the ambit of rethinking what evidence meant in the new world with AI. AI might require a complete reassessment of what constitutes persuasive evidence. In a world of deepfakes and manufactured data, she questioned whether traditional documentary evidence should retain its dominant role. She raised several pertinent questions in this regard, such as, should tribunals place greater emphasis on physical witness testimony to avoid deep fakes?
“In an era where our data will be diluted with vast amounts of data, you can’t verify that data in a way that is readily applicable to most arbitration tribunals, that I think we need to rethink what kind of evidence a tribunal finds is persuasive and allows to move forward.”
Furthermore, Mr. Blann raised concerns regarding ballooning litigation due to the disputes arising from the use of AI in evidence and suggested the creation of a system that prevents that.
Confidentiality and Arbitration
Ms. Nappert rejected the suggestion that arbitration confidentiality creates fundamentally new AI-related vulnerabilities. Instead, she argued that concerns about bad actors using fabricated and concealed misconduct predate AI and can be addressed through vigilant tribunal oversight.
Adding to Ms. Nappert’s point, Lord Thomas remarked that the confidentiality in arbitration was limited as bad actors often became the subject of informed gossip.
Coping with after-effects
Regarding the question of institutional response to cope with the negative effects of AI, Lord Thomas strongly advocated international collaboration among courts. He explained that legal systems must share knowledge and best practices because AI-related abuses and litigation tactics spread rapidly across borders. He also highlighted the role of international judicial forums in developing coordinated responses to emerging technological risks.
“One needs to work internationally, across the courts, and I believe the same for our treasurers. We need to pool knowledge and develop, as best we can, rules, procedures, and intelligence to deal with any abuse that AI can cause.”
Adding to the topic of global jurisdictions, Ms. Nappert suggested that jurisdictions had to arrive at a best practice, citing the effectiveness of soft law. She underscored that the challenge of technology was that every institution was playing catch-up all the time, be it the legislature, law firms, or the courts. Thus, it was important to assess what every institution was undertaking to create a synchronized response mechanism.
The Road Ahead
On the topic of what the future with AI looked like, Lord Thomas stated that though it was difficult to predict the timeline for the introduction of AI, it might change the game yet again. He opined that, though the change was vastly more complicated and faster than previous ones, the legal community had proved to be adaptable. Thus, he emphasised that the solution was sticking to the fundamental approach of questioning reliability, relevance, and weightage as well as retaining human judgment.
Mr. Blann also expressed concern about the training of junior lawyers. As AI increasingly automates traditional entry-level legal work, firms must rethink how future lawyers acquire the judgment and experience necessary for senior roles.
Lord Thomas and Ms. Nappert also emphasized retaining human judgment and common sense, which are indispensable in the profession and not replicable by AI. Ms. Nappert predicted that future lawyers will need a different skill set. In addition to traditional legal analysis, practitioners will require expertise in AI systems, prompt engineering, data interrogation, etc. Her advice to young professionals was to focus on the uniquely human aspects of legal practice while developing the skills necessary to work effectively alongside intelligent technologies.
Lord Thomas adviced young lawyers to embrace AI as a productivity tool to deliver efficient and cost-effective outcomes for clients. However, they must not trust the outcomes and always review the output as well as be prepared to learn how to cope with new challenges.
The discussion concluded with a shared view that while AI presents unprecedented challenges, such as the rise of frivolous litigations and mistrust of evidence, legal institutions have successfully adapted to previous technological revolutions and can do so again, provided they remain proactive, collaborative, and committed to preserving trust in the justice system.
SCC Times extends its appreciation to Zehra Naqvi, EBC–SCC Online Foreign Student Ambassador and Lawyer, for her on ground presence, valuable assistance and contribution to the reporting of this event.
