AI IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
PAGE 31
Dr Adam Abdelnoor (61-70) was one of panellists at a recent professional networking event for young lawyers. The theme of the discussion was the use of AI in the legal profession. His understanding and passion for the subject, which is very much in the news, was evident and we share here some of his thoughts.
I have been providing family, criminal, education, immigration, civil and employment courts and tribunals with expert witness psychology reports since 1997. I am a published author, using AI in many ways as an aid to my work, though never as co-author. I came to expert witness work as a chartered psychologist, with a background in
doing so as a first scan. Original sources are always verified by me, without exception. I have heard that others tell their AI not to ‘hallucinate’ – surely, a misinformed and high-risk approach. I use it to summarise published critiques of an opinion I am considering (this helps me ensure I have
appropriately given the court divergent opinions). It is often preferable to Google, giving me uncluttered and focused search returns. I sometimes check my ‘native’ psychology data (what I think I know) with AI, to confirm it. AI can often magically find, from a vague and incomplete description, material which I know is out there, but have no idea where! I find new uses from time to time. AI augments my productivity and accuracy. It is not an alternative producer of outcomes. ChatGPT wrote: “AI is increasingly used as a support tool in the preparation of expert witness reports, rather than as a substitute
teaching, research, family casework and learning disabilities, having been awarded a doctorate in 1997. Almost as important as my formal experience, was the valuable asset of life experience. A good expert serves the courts by enquiring into the heart of the matter; from a psychological perspective, this is almost always an examination of the subject’s character, motives, reasoning, or capacity. This inside perspective, together with an assessment of ‘what it means’, provides a vital additional dimension to the court’s deliberations.
Garry Starr, whose work he admired. “He spoke a lot about Gaulier and how it shaped his work, and I was inspired to go,” Hamish explains. “I went on their website, saw the year course starting in ten days, and I had nothing on — so I moved to just outside Paris and went!” The training was intense. “You spend most of the time trying to be funny and being told you are ‘totally boring’,” he says. “But they also teach with a lot of heart, and it was by far the best year of my life.” The biggest lesson he took away? “You’re most watchable as a performer when you’re having fun,” he says. “Whenever you’re lost or thinking about what to do on stage, just look for whatever is going to be fun for you in that moment.” The Curse of Billy Buckles — and Beyond Hamish’s latest show, originally billed as The Curse of Billy Buckles , has evolved significantly since its early description. “It’s currently a multi‑character comedy show set in a haunted theatre on the night it gets demolished,” he explains. “I play all the ghosts — and some of the furniture.” His influences are eclectic. “My comedy inspirations are really diverse,” he says. “I love stand‑ups like James Acaster, Jordan Brookes, and John Kearns. I’m also inspired by modern clown performers like Zack Zucker and Natalie Palamides. And I think about films a lot when making my characters — for this show I’ve taken inspiration from Sunset Boulevard , Shrek , and Tim Burton’s Corpse Bride .”
It’s a blend that reflects his hybrid identity: part clown, part writer, part actor, part director, part mischief‑maker. When asked whether he sees himself committing fully to stand‑up or continuing to juggle multiple creative roles, Hamish doesn’t hesitate. “Comedy, acting, producing, and directing are all different expressions of the same muscles,” he says. “I love doing it all.” His future plans are refreshingly open‑ended. “I’ll keep doing live comedy, acting jobs, and I’d love to write scripts for screen,” he says. “My plan is just to do whatever seems appealing at the time and see what comes my way.” A Performer in Motion What’s striking about Hamish Lloyd Barnes is not just his versatility, but the sense of play that runs through everything he does. Whether he’s devising theatre with a company, improvising a sketch, crafting a stand‑up set, or being told he’s “totally boring” by a French clown master, he approaches it all with curiosity and humour. He’s still that Year 10 student discovering the joy of making people laugh — only now, the stage is bigger, the characters stranger, and the audiences (usually) more appreciative. And if there’s one thread that ties his journey together, it’s the simple rule he learned in clown school and now carries everywhere: follow the fun.
So much mythology has already been generated by humans around AI, or ‘hu-generated’. Each of us has our own understanding of what AI is and what it can do, depending on how we use it, and which stories we’ve been listening to. By way of balance, in describing the role of AI in the preparation of expert witness reports, I thought it only right to include the AI-generated views of an AI interface. But to ensure my opinion is truly hu- generated (untainted by AI), I went first! My first thoughts are that good practice guidance for using AI is very similar across professions. My own AI usage reflects my experience and my learning path. To capture both, I decided to write about 150 words on the subject and then ask Chat GPT to do the same. My view is personal. Everyone’s view of their AI usage is personal. AI interacts with humans reciprocally. Users are therefore in a relationship with it, unique to them, characterised by learning, discovery, and one-sided human responses (amongst which may be frustration, delight, aversion, or dependency). I am learning to write the ‘right’ prompts as how a question is phrased can make all the difference to the response. I never use AI to write text, although I sometimes reword fragments to save time. Others might. Ditto for summarising documents, although in future I’ll be testing
for expert judgment. It can assist with literature searches, summarising large bodies of research, checking consistency across drafts, and improving clarity and structure. AI tools are particularly helpful for managing time-pressured work, highlighting gaps in reasoning, and ensuring that reports address the relevant legal questions and standards. However, responsibility for the opinions expressed remains entirely with the human expert. Courts require transparency, independence, and the ability to explain and defend conclusions under cross-examination: tasks that cannot be delegated to AI. Any use of AI must therefore be disclosed where appropriate, carefully supervised, and limited to administrative or analytical assistance. Used well, AI can enhance accuracy, coherence, and efficiency, allowing experts to focus on interpretation, professional judgment, and ethical accountability, which remain fundamentally human responsibilities.” I suggest that this example is indicative of some of the differences between ‘hu-generated’ and AI-generated text. Which one is more comprehensive? Which more challenging? Which more thought -provoking? Which one can you identify with most?
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker