Expert witnesses, AI and the limits of its professional judgement
Chartered surveyors are regularly asked to step into the role of expert witness – bringing years of professional experience to bear in courtrooms, tribunals and arbitrations, writes Clive Scrivener, Founder Partner at Wimbledon-based Chartered Surveyors, Scrivener Tibbatts Ltd.
It is a role with a long pedigree. One of the earliest recorded examples dates back to 1772, when the civil engineer John Smeaton was called to give evidence in Folkes v Chadd, a dispute concerning the development of a harbour at Wells-next-the-Sea in Norfolk. The principle was simple, but enduring – when courts are faced with technical questions beyond ordinary knowledge, they turn to those with specialist expertise.
Fast forward to today and the expert witness landscape is large enough, and complex enough, to justify detailed research. The recently published Expert Witness Survey 2025, produced by the Law Society Gazette and legal training consultancy Bond Solon, offers a timely snapshot of how experts are working – and how that work is changing.
One headline figure from the survey is that just 20 percent of respondents say they have used artificial intelligence (AI) in their work as an expert witness. That is more than double the 9.3 percent reported in 2024, but still strikingly low when set against the wider UK workforce, where around 65 percent intentionally use AI tools at work.
Mark Solon, managing director of Bond Solon, suggests this caution is understandable. Many expert witnesses, he argues, are still unsure how and when AI can be used appropriately in a role that depends so heavily on independence, judgement and credibility.
There are, however, some limited and sensible uses already emerging. Martin Burns, head of alternative dispute resolution research and development at RICS, notes that some experts are using tools such as ChatGPT to improve the language and structure of reports, making them clearer and more accessible to non-specialists. What matters, he stresses, is where the line is drawn. Using AI to draft substantive opinion without rigorous review would be wholly inappropriate.
This is why training on AI is not simply about learning how to use software, but about understanding its limits – and its risks. Questions of what AI can do, what it cannot do, and what it should not be used for are central to maintaining trust in expert evidence.
That need for clarity is reflected in the survey results. An overwhelming 89 percent of respondents believe that specific guidance on the use of AI by expert witnesses is required in the UK. The report highlights comments made in June 2025 by Victoria Sharp, president of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court, who referred to cases where fictitious authorities were cited in evidence as a result of careless AI use.
RICS has already taken steps in this direction. A new global professional standard on the responsible use of AI will come into effect in March 2026, providing clearer expectations for members. Burns is clear on the underlying principle: expert evidence must always be the expert’s own honest opinion, grounded in their personal expertise. AI may assist, but it must never replace professional judgement.
Regulation and standards
Opinion is more divided on whether expert witnesses should be formally regulated, but a significant 59 percent of survey respondents believe regulation could help raise standards. As Solon points out, this is already commonplace in professions such as medicine and psychology.
Suggestions from respondents include a government-backed register of accredited experts and minimum annual CPD requirements. For chartered surveyors, regulation already applies. When acting as expert witnesses, RICS members are required to comply with RICS professional statements and guidance specific to expert evidence.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they would consider taking instruction in potentially controversial or high-profile cases. Many of those in favour emphasised the importance of press anonymity, appropriate insurance and access to independent legal support.
Burns offers a practical reminder for any surveyor contemplating such work. The standards do not change because a case is high profile, but the pressure certainly does. Experts should be confident in defending their opinions under robust cross-examination, answering direct questions from tribunals, and responding to opposing expert evidence.
As he notes, the expert witness is not an advocate. Their role is to assist the court, even if that means facing an uncomfortable or forensic challenge from opposing counsel.
That point was reinforced by James McCreath, a barrister at Wilberforce Chambers, speaking at the Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference 2025. His advice was blunt and sensible: AI can help organise complex factual material, but it is no substitute for checking the detail. Ultimately, the court is interested in what the expert thinks – not what an algorithm produces.
The full Expert Witness Survey 2025 makes clear that technology may change how experts work, but it does not change what is expected of them. Independence, competence and judgement remain non-negotiable.
If you would like to discuss something related to a property valuation please contact Clive Scrivener direct via email at Clive@scrivenertibbatts.co.uk or call 020 8971 2983.
(Image: Pexels.com)
