Litigation Day at Future Lawyer Week 2024

Are you attending Future Lawyer Week?   We’re delighted to sponsor Litigation Day, on 18th April 2024.

Stephen Dowling, Senior Counsel and CEO of TrialView, will be joined by Anna Gilbert, Counsel at Hausfeld, to explore the transformative force of digitisation in case management within litigation. Together, they’ll dissect its end-to-end workflow and unveil the plethora of opportunities it presents for legal professionals.

We hope to see you there!

Future Lawyer UK

Competing Interests at the CAT: Balancing Technology and Complexity

We’re delighted to host an online webinar with the SCL (Society for Computers and Law) on the evolving challenges at the CAT (Competition Appeal Tribunal), balancing complexity with new technology.

Date:  26th April, 10am. Online Webinar

Speakers: Chaired by our Commercial Director, Eimear McCann, our panel includes Airlie Goodman, Partner at Mayer brown; Hormis Kallarackel, Associate at Mayer Brown; Leon Major, at KL Discovery; and Stephen Dowling, TrialView founder and Senior Counsel.

With the exponential increase in digital data, the need to use technology at a much earlier earlier stage of proceedings is ever more evident. Technology now plays a crucial role in efficiently identifying, categorising, and safeguarding sensitive information in competition law – for example, within the framework of confidentiality rings.

Looking at this through the lens of PD 1/2024*, our panel will explore how technology – which is both the problem and the solution – could be used effectively to manage the increasing complexity of data. Our experts will also look at how collaboration, between all parties, including legal tech suppliers, could offer a real opportunity to navigate these challenges proactively.

*Practice Direction 1/2024 addresses the establishment of confidentiality rings, a mechanism allowing restricted distribution of documents containing sensitive information.

Register here.

AI in ADR: Fundamentals

We are delighted to run a series of webinars with CIArb and Jus Mundi. The first webinar in our AI and ADR: Theory and Practice series will focus on the current legal technology market, available AI tools and their nature. The panel will also take a critical look at benefits and risks of relying on AI in ADR and explore relevant practical cases.

Speakers: Kateryna Honcharenko MCIArb; Stephen Dowling; Monica Crespo & Johnny Shearman.

AI and ADR: Theory and Practice

New technology has become an integral part of the legal profession over recent years. However, when it comes to artificial intelligence (AI), it has also become a stumbling block. AI tools are capable of significantly increasing our professional efficiency, but unconditional reliance on AI may also adversely affect the procedural efficiency of all forms of private dispute resolution. This includes due process, confidentiality, enforceability and other principal procedural matters. The question many dispute resolution practitioners are asking is: To what extent can AI be used in our work?

Together, we’ll explore the realm of AI, including AI tools and their application. We will discuss how AI can be utilised in an efficient and safe manner, and what parties, counsel and tribunals should consider before using AI tools.

Each webinar focuses on a particular theme, giving you the opportunity to learn from experts in the field. You can then discuss the theme further with expert moderators and peers at a subsequent Let’s Discuss networking event.

This webinar is FREE, register here. 

Please note, times listed are in BST (GMT+1).

Don’t forget to register for  Let’s Discuss AI Fundamentals in ADR! 

AI & Early Tech Adoption

The strategic implications of using tech at an earlier stage in the litigation lifecycle is really starting to land with legal teams. We explore the reasons behind this trend; as you may have already guessed, AI may just be the catalyst. With huge amounts of digital data to navigate, we also ask whether practitioners will actually have a choice in the future.

AI-Powered Semantic Search

The traditional challenges of sifting through vast amounts of legal documents to find relevant information are significantly alleviated by AI-driven semantic search. With platforms like TrialView, the capacity to understand context, meaning, and relationships between words, pinpointing critical details efficiently takes seconds. From pleadings to evidence, AI-enhanced semantic search transforms the way we manage information, ensuring not only speed but also a higher level of precision in document retrieval.

Seamless Collaboration

Collaboration lies at the heart of dispute management, and AI amplifies this aspect in the realm of electronic bundling. Cloud-based solutions, like TrialView, when infused with AI capabilities, facilitate seamless collaboration among legal teams. Multiple professionals can work simultaneously on shared documents, with AI algorithms suggesting improvements and ensuring consistency. The result is a more cohesive workflow, breaking down silos and enhancing the collective intelligence of the legal team.


Flowing through from early case management to the courtroom, AI tools offers a real opportunity to enhance the overall impact during a hearing. The art of persuasion meets the precision of data, which can be interrogated and presented in an effective and visual way to the court or tribunal.

Cost Efficiency

The integration of AI, used at a much earlier stage, has the potential to significantly reduce costs. Aside from the evident saving on printing, AI mitigates hours spent on the mundane, from disclosure through to bundling. Moreover, AI pervades the entire data set, opening up the potential to find and track patterns throughout the data.

The Future

The early adoption of platforms, like TrialView, enhanced by AI’s capabilities in semantic search and timeline creation, is not just a tech trend, but represents a fundamental shift in the way legal professionals approach disputes.

Ultimately, it’s an investment in efficiency, collaboration, and strategic case management — a commitment to staying at the forefront of a shifting disputes landscape.


New Practice Direction on Confidentiality Rings: PD 1/2024

The CAT has issued a practice direction seeking to manage confidential information, which will be applicable to all cases which have their first CMC (case management conference) after 4th January 2024.

We look at the fundamentals of this new PD and examine how the right technology can offer a more efficient solution to the rising challenge of complex competition cases.

What is PD 1/2024?

Practice Direction 1/2024 addresses the establishment of confidentiality rings, a mechanism allowing restricted distribution of documents containing sensitive information. The direction acknowledges the growing complexity of confidentiality rings, which often include both “inner” and “outer” rings, posing challenges in document disclosure, and beyond. The aim is to streamline the management of confidential information while ensuring compliance with Rule 101(1) of the Tribunal’s Rules. Rule 101(1) requires specific reasons (both as to the nature of the sensitivity of the information contained in the documents and the adverse effect of disclosure) to be given for each request for confidential treatment of a document.

The Starting Point: Rule 102

Rule 102 sets the baseline for document protection in Tribunal proceedings, stipulating that a party receiving a document may only use it for the purposes of the proceedings, and not for any extraneous purpose, such as commercial decision-making.

In essence, Rule 102 can be viewed as an “outer ring” confidentiality ring. Para 7 of the PD states;

“Accordingly, the Tribunal’s starting point will be that, at least for the purposes of disclosure by the parties, the protection afforded by Rule 102 equates to an “outer” confidentiality ring, and that the creation, use and content of a formal confidentiality ring will have to be justified. The Tribunal will, at an early stage in any proceedings, be prepared to consider fortifying the protection conferred by Rule 102 in an appropriate case.”

Additional Protection and Early Consideration

The practice direction highlights the duty of parties to give early consideration to confidentiality issues likely to arise in a case. It distinguishes between cases where Rule 102 restrictions suffice, and situations requiring additional measures, such as confidentiality rings or specific orders governing document use. The nature of the case and the sensitivity of information guide these considerations.

The Confidentiality Protocol

To facilitate the management of confidentiality issues, parties are encouraged to develop a confidentiality protocol before the first CMC. This protocol should address the nature and extent of sensitive information; the grounds for claims to confidentiality; processes for challenging claims; and the establishment of confidentiality rings. It serves as a proactive tool for parties to collaboratively navigate potential challenges related to confidential data.

The new practice direction zones in on the need for parties to justify whether specific confidentiality arrangements are really needed, and they are encouraged to do so at a very early stage. The PD makes it very clear that there will be costs implications if parties fail to reach a workable solution.

The role of Technology

With the exponential increase in digital data, the need to use technology at a much earlier stage of proceedings continues to grow in parallel. Technology now plays a crucial role in efficiently identifying, categorising, and safeguarding sensitive information within the framework of confidentiality rings.

As acknowledged by the CAT, the increasing complexity of data, and subsequently of confidentiality rings, requires collaboration, early case management and the need for a proactive and technology-driven approach. The integration of AI, when aligned with the pragmatic principles outlined in the practice direction, offers law firms the opportunity to navigate confidentiality challenges more effectively.

At TrialView, we have designed technology specifically for this challenge. This Technology has been employed in hearings before before the CAT.


  • Robust user authentication protocols. The most confidential information is only visible to parties within a court ordered inner confidentiality ring, while less sensitive (but still confidential) material can be visible to those in an outer confidentiality ring. Users who are not members of the inner or outer confidentiality rings are able to view redacted versions of confidential material.
  • Permission settings facilitate the designation of users into teams and specific roles, with each role aligned to their individual membership of the confidentiality rings.
  • Special controls ensure that a user will only have access to the version of the document they are entitled to see.
  • Evidence presentation is designed so that different users see different versions of the same document simultaneously (based on the log in credentials).
  • Version control facilitates consistency of pagination, structure, and tabbing.
  • Dynamic watermarking ensures that exports and bundles contain the correct confidentiality designation, ensuring that any shared document can be traced back to source.
  • Exports and bundles of documents can also be set to align to the recipient’s confidentiality ring membership.

To see how this worked out in practice, see our Case Study with Fieldfisher.

We will be running a webinar on this topic with the SCL, so do keep an eye out for updates

New Guidance on GenAI for the Bar

The Bar Council has issued new guidance addressing the use of ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence (AI) large language model systems (LLMs) by barristers. The guidance emphasises that while there is nothing inherently improper about employing reliable AI tools to augment legal services, practitioners must have a clear understanding of these tools and use them responsibly.

Key risks associated with LLMs, such as anthropomorphism; hallucinations; information disorder; and bias in data training, were highlighted.

Barristers are advised to:


  • verify LLM output, and maintain proper procedures for checking generative outputs, due to the potential hallucinations and biases
  • refrain from substituting professional judgement, quality legal analysis and expertise, with content generated by LLMs
  • exercise vigilance regarding sharing privileged or confidential information on any LLM system
  • assess generated content for potential intellectual property violations.

The guidance also recommends staying abreast of relevant Civil Procedure Rules, which, in the future, may implement rules/practice directions on the use of LLMs.

Sam Townend KC, Chair of the Bar Council, emphasised the inevitability of AI tools’ growth in the legal sector and urged barristers to understand these systems for controlled and ethical use.

The guidance, developed by the Bar Council’s IT Panel in consultation with the Regulatory Review Panel, aims to assist barristers in adhering to legal and ethical standards when incorporating LLMs into their practices. It concludes by noting that the guidance is subject to review, and practitioners should remain vigilant and adapt to changes in the legal and regulatory landscape. Importantly, the guidance is not considered legal advice and does not serve as ‘guidance’ for the purposes of the BSB Handbook 16.4.

Full guidance can be found here.