Book a free consultation

Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Industry

In this article, David Brogelli of Elysium Law examines the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence in the Legal Industry and its practical applications going forward.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly used in the field of law both in the United Kingdom and across the globe. There are a number of ways in which AI is being used to improve the legal process, including legal research, document review, and case prediction.


One of the main ways in which AI is being used in UK law is in the area of legal research. AI-powered legal research tools can quickly and accurately search through vast amounts of information, such as case law and statutes, making it easier for lawyers to find relevant information and make decisions. This can save time and money for both lawyers and more importantly their clients.

Another key area where AI is being used is in document review. This process is typically time-consuming and laborious, as it involves reading through large amounts of text to identify relevant information. AI-powered document review tools can help to automate this process, making it more efficient and accurate. This can be particularly useful in the context of e-discovery, where large volumes of electronic documents need to be reviewed in the context of litigation. Elysium Law uses powerful software which can help us sift through hundreds of thousands of pages to get the information we require.

Interestingly AI is also being used to predict the outcome of cases. By analysing patterns in past cases, AI algorithms can be trained to predict the likelihood of a particular outcome in a future case. This can be useful for lawyers and clients in planning their strategy and making decisions, although practically this is still in its infancy.

In addition, AI is being used to automate the contract review process, helping lawyers to identify errors, inconsistencies and identify missing information. This is particularly useful in the area of due diligence, where large numbers of contracts need to be reviewed.

However, it’s worth noting that AI isn’t without its limitations and challenges, such as bias and lack of transparency, etc. In order to ensure that AI is used in a responsible and ethical way, it’s important to have proper governance and regulations in place.


Of course, with any new development comes risk below are some of the limitations and concerns regarding the use of AI in the legal industry.

  1. Bias: AI systems may perpetuate and even amplify existing biases in the data they are trained on. This can lead to unfair or inaccurate decisions and is of course a very important consideration as the use of AI evolves. It also highlights the importance of human involvement.
  2. Lack of accountability: It can be difficult to determine who is responsible for errors made by AI systems, which can make it challenging to hold anyone accountable for those errors.
  3. Loss of jobs: The use of Artificial Intelligence in the legal industry may lead to job loss for lawyers and other legal professionals, as tasks that were previously done by humans may be automated. This is of course a global issue that will need addressing over the coming years as automation continues to increase and society develops.
  4. Complexity: The legal field is complex and nuanced, which can make it challenging for AI systems to accurately understand and interpret legal information.
  5. Lack of transparency: Some AI systems may be difficult to understand or explain, which can make it challenging for humans to understand how they are making decisions.


Overall, AI has the potential to significantly improve the legal industry both in the UK and globally, making it more efficient, accurate and cost-effective. As technology continues to develop, it’s likely that we will see more and more applications of AI in the legal field and we are certainly seeing significant investment from the UK Legal Industry. This of course will require regulation and the EU is leading in that regard. The European Commission already has a regulatory framework proposal that identifies the risks and uses of AI in the legal sector.

At Elysium Law we use several sophisticated programs to help us deal with clients’ matters efficiently and to save costs to the client. We continue to watch this development with interest.


In this article David Brogelli discusses the use of a Standstill Agreement specifically in disputes with HMRC but also their relevance in wider applications.


The Limitation Act 1980 sets out specific time limits for certain actions to be brought.

A Claimant’s failure to do so is an absolute bar to bringing the Claim, but the defence of limitation must be pleaded in any Defence.

Note, the court will not simply strike out a claim of its own motion.

Recently, Elysium Law has been approached by a number of clients who, either as individuals or via their Company entered Tax Avoidance Schemes all of which were registered under DoTAS.

Not surprisingly, HMRC has issued determinations under Regulation 80 of the Income Tax Pay As You Earn and Regulation 2003 and  Section 8 of the Social Security (Transfer of Contributions) regulations 2001.

Again, not surprisingly, given the planning arrangements and various challenges most of these assessments have been the subject of an appeal with the tax held over pending the outcome.

As far as the collection of National Insurance Contributions are concerned, this is a contractual debt. HMRC is therefore bound by the provisions of Section 5 of the act in that any claims for a debt must be issued within the 6-years period, failing which the Taxpayer can raise limitation as an absolute bar to the claim.

For the avoidance of doubt, the NIC is due from the year in which it should have been paid and not of course from the date of the assessment.

The Letter of Claim and the Pre-Action Protocol for debt Claims

HMRC is not bound by the pre-action protocol on debts.

Their position is covered by Practice Direction 7 D Section 1.1 (e).

Generally, if a defence is filed, the court will fix a date for a hearing and the only evidence that is needed from HMRC is a certificate – the PD goes on to state;

3.1 On the hearing date the court may dispose of the claim.

(Section 25A(1) and (2) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 (‘the 2005 Act’) provides that a certificate of an officer of Revenue and Customs that, to the best of that officer’s knowledge and belief, a sum payable to the Commissioners under or by virtue of an enactment or by virtue of a contract settlement (within the meaning of section25(6) of the 2005 Act) has not been paid, is sufficient evidence that the sum mentioned in the certificate is unpaid.)

The ’PD’ goes on to state:

3.2 But exceptionally, if the court does not dispose of the claim on the hearing date it may give case management directions, which may if the defendant has filed a defence, include allocating the case.

Protective proceedings and the issue of a Claim

In their Particulars of Claim HMRC say:

“The Claim is issued to protect the Claimant’s right to NICs that it considers to be correctly due…once the Claim is issued, it is the Claimants intention to make application to the court for a general adjournment pending the outcome of the Defendant’s appeal.”

As far as the issue fee is concerned, most if not all of these cases fall into the County Court and the issue fee is payable in the sum of 5% of the amount alleged to be owed. In the event that the Claimant loses the claim, the disbursement as well as any cost will automatically follow the event as will interest on the debt, which must be pleaded in the Claim.

In the majority of cases, HMRC has written to the various Defendants and has threatened proceedings.

Prior to issuing proceedings, it is prudent that HMRC is offered a standstill agreement in order to stop time running during the limitation period. We believe that this will protect the Taxpayer on the question of costs should the challenge to the planning fail and the NICs become due and payable, as at that stage, there can be no defence to the Claim.

Standstill Agreements

In our view and in order to protect your client or yourself on costs, we suggest that you offer HMRC a standstill agreement under which the Claimant agrees not to rely on the expiry of a limitation period as a defence and which runs from a given date (usually the date of the agreement) until notice is given to restart the claim.

This will, in effect, freeze the running of time at the date of the agreement, while giving the Defendant the option to start the clock running again by giving notice to the claimant. Of course, if the Defendant taxpayer wanted to restart the claim before the planning issues had been decided by for example the FTT, then HMRC would be within its rights to issue and stay the claim. This would result in no costs protection for the Defendant, on the contrary.

How is time stood still?

There is a difference between extending time and suspending time for limitation purposes.

An agreement to suspend time (Standstill Agreement) is set out in the following way.

The suspension of time under this agreement shall continue in force until the earlier of:

(a) 30 days after the service by any party of a notice stating that the running of time is to recommence; or

 (b) the service of proceedings by any party in connection with the Dispute; or

 (c) [add in a long stop date] or an event such as determination of the issues taken by HMRC (mention the planning).

 In this case, upon the conclusion of the trigger event, the remainder of the limitation period would run.

If however, the Parties decide to contract to extend the limitation this will expire on the date set out in the agreement.

 The author’s view is that the suspension of time is by far the safest way of proceeding.

 If you want to know more about standstill agreements or want advice upon litigation against HMRC, or any other party, then contact us