AI, Professional Reports and Accountability: Lessons from Cornwall Council v M & Ors

Artificial intelligence is increasingly being used across professional services, including healthcare and the legal sector. A recent Family Court judgment provides a useful and measured examination of where that use can become problematic. In Cornwall Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 306, the Court considered the use of Microsoft Copilot by an Independent Social Worker who had been instructed to provide assessments within care proceedings. The judgment does not suggest that every use of AI is unacceptable. Instead, HHJ Flexman described a sliding scale between lower-risk assistance and the point at which AI begins, in substance, to become the author of the professional report.

For those working in Expert Witness and Case Management roles, that distinction is worth considering.

What happened in the case?

The Independent Social Worker had produced a number of assessments for the proceedings.It emerged that Microsoft Copilot had been used during preparation of those reports. Initially, the use was described as administrative support: organising information, assisting with drafting and improving language. In oral evidence, however, the professional explained that conversations had been digitally transcribed, Copilot had summarised those transcripts and generated reports from her notes. She confirmed that one of the kinship assessments had been generated in its entirety by AI from her source material, although she maintained that the conclusions represented her professional opinion. The Court therefore had to consider not simply whether AI had been used, but how far that use had extended into the substance of the professional work.

The Court recognised that different uses carry different levels of risk

This is an important part of the judgment. HHJ Flexman did not regard the use of Copilot for transcription, spelling, grammar or improving presentation as presenting a significant issue in the circumstances of the case. He regarded that type of use as lower risk.

The concern arose when AI was used to generate the reports themselves. The judge noted that although the source material belonged to the professional, the analysis, headings, layout, construction and development of the report had been AI-generated. He described this as creating a significant gap between the professional’s own voice and opinion and the report filed with the Court. He went on to recognise that the boundary is not always straightforward. There is, he said, a sliding scale between acceptable use and use which effectively amounts to AI authorship.

Generating an entire report from professional notes was regarded as moving towards the latter and, importantly, affected the weight the Court was prepared to attach to the written evidence.

The issue was not simply that AI had been used

This is perhaps the most important point. The Court did not conclude that the professional evidence was unreliable simply because AI was involved. There were also problems with the underlying assessment. The judgment identified factual inaccuracies, concerns about the methodology used and weaknesses in the analysis. The judge ultimately found both the written and oral evidence to lack sufficient rigour and clarity of thought. AI was therefore part of a wider concern about the reliability of the professional work. That makes the case more useful than a simple warning about technology. The underlying requirement remained the same:

the professional must understand the evidence, apply their own expertise and be able to explain the reasoning behind their conclusions.

What does this mean for Expert Witnesses?

For an Expert Witness, that requirement is fundamental. An expert’s role is not simply to provide the Court with a conclusion. The expert must explain the facts and assumptions relied upon, consider the relevant evidence, identify limitations and give reasons for the opinion expressed. The statement of truth also confirms that the opinions within the report represent the expert’s true and complete professional opinions. That means the reasoning matters as much as the final answer. An expert must be able to explain:

• what evidence was considered;
• what information was significant;
• where evidence conflicted;
• what assumptions were made;
• where uncertainty remains; and
• how the professional opinion was reached.

A well-written report cannot compensate for weaknesses in that process.

What does this mean for Case Managers?

A Case Manager performs a different role from an Expert Witness and does not owe the same procedural duty to the Court. The principle of professional ownership is nevertheless equally relevant. Case Managers routinely prepare Initial Needs Assessments, rehabilitation plans, progress reports, risk documentation and recommendations concerning care, therapy, equipment, accommodation and other forms of support. Those reports can influence significant decisions about an individual’s rehabilitation. A good Case Management report should therefore allow the reader to understand not only what has been recommended, but why.

The reasoning should be visible:

• need identified
• information considered
• options assessed
• recommendation made
• action taken
• outcome reviewed

That process cannot be reduced to producing a summary of the information available. Case Management requires the professional to understand the individual, their circumstances, risks, goals, environment and the wider rehabilitation picture. The value lies in the professional assessment of that information.

Human oversight was also important

The judgment contained a particularly practical example of why oversight matters. Text apparently generated by Copilot itself had remained within two of the assessments. One passage referred to the wording being more likely to withstand cross-examination. Another explained why particular wording had been chosen. The judge regarded this as demonstrating that there had not been adequate human oversight of the finished report.

It is an important reminder that simply reading a document after it has been generated is not necessarily the same as having undertaken the reasoning behind it. Professional accountability requires more than approving the finished wording.

Professional reports need professional ownership

This is where the judgment has relevance beyond the particular facts of the case. Whether a document is an Expert Witness report or a Case Management assessment, the reader should be able to identify the professional reasoning behind it. That does not mean every report needs to follow the same style. Nor does it mean technology cannot have a legitimate administrative role within professional practice more generally. It means that where a professional is responsible for an assessment, recommendation or opinion, they must be able to explain how they reached it.

The report should remain recognisably their work.

Harrison Associates’ approach

At Harrison Associates, AI is not permitted in the preparation of our Case Management or Expert Witness reports. Our approach is deliberately straightforward. The professional whose name appears on the report is responsible for the assessment, reasoning and conclusions within it.

• For Expert Witness work, this supports the independence and professional accountability required of the expert.
• For Case Management, it ensures that recommendations remain rooted in the Case Manager’s own assessment of the individual’s needs, circumstances and rehabilitation.

Our quality assurance processes provide an additional human review of reports, but they do not replace professional authorship. The report remains the work of the practitioner responsible for it.

A useful judgment rather than an anti-AI judgment

Cornwall Council v M & Ors is useful precisely because the Court did not treat every use of AI as equivalent. HHJ Flexman recognised that there is a sliding scale. At one end are lower-risk administrative uses. Further along that scale is the use of AI for substantive analysis and report generation. The greater the role AI plays in creating the professional analysis, the more important questions of authorship, oversight and accountability become. The judgment also makes another point which should not be overlooked. Technology does not change the fundamentals of professional reporting.

Facts still need to be accurate.

Evidence still needs to be understood.

Recommendations and opinions still require reasoning.

The professional responsible for the report must still be able to explain how they arrived at their conclusions.

For both Expert Witnesses and Case Managers, that remains the important point.

Good professional reporting is not simply about producing a convincing document. It is about being able to stand behind the reasoning within it.

Case: Cornwall Council v M & Ors [2026] EWFC 306, 30 September 2026.

How Harrison Associates supports solicitors

Harrison Associates provides Expert Witness and Case Management services for solicitors handling serious injury, catastrophic injury, complex personal injury and clinical negligence claims.

Our Expert Witnesses provide independent opinion on function, rehabilitation, care, therapy, prognosis and future needs. Our Case Managers coordinate rehabilitation, support injured people and families, liaise with professionals and help ensure practical needs are identified and addressed.

Where a claim requires clear evidence, structured rehabilitation input or a better understanding of future provision, Harrison Associates can help solicitors identify the right expertise at the right stage.

To discuss expert witness evidence or case management support for a serious injury claim, contact us today.

Make an Enquiry