The battle between Andrew Gerrie, the former chief executive of Lush, and his successor Mark Constantine is about to get even more costly. Lawyers representing Gerrie have significantly boosted their fees in preparation for a High Court trial, which is set to kick off later this month. The hefty price tag has raised eyebrows, with one judge describing it as "unbalanced" – partly due to the decision to use only senior lawyers to train an AI model to review a massive 30,000 disclosure documents.
Gerrie's legal team from Brown Rudnick is now seeking £6.1 million in litigation costs, a jump of over 50 per cent since January. A significant chunk of this increase – more than £500,000 – goes towards the fees for reviewing these disclosure documents using AI technology. This might seem like a slick way to manage huge amounts of paperwork, but the catch is that only senior lawyers are involved in training the model, despite it typically being a task assigned to junior staff.
The justification from Gerrie's team is that employing trainee lawyers or junior associates would risk them "inappropriately program[ming] the model." Insolvency Judge Matthew Parfitt acknowledges this logic but also criticises the excessive reliance on senior earners, remarking that it "seems to be unbalanced" to have such a large proportion of fees at the higher rate.
The trial itself stems from a long-standing feud between Gerrie and Constantine, which dates back to Gerrie's departure from Lush in 2014. The case will see testimony from seven witnesses, including both parties and their spouses, with a central question being whether Gerrie voluntarily stepped down or was forced out by Constantine.
This high-profile case is not only about the personalities involved but also raises important questions about the responsible use of AI in law. There have been several recent examples of lawyers using AI incorrectly, including instances of "AI hallucinations" where technology fabricates facts and citations. The Lush trial highlights the need for greater accountability when using AI in legal proceedings.
As the UK's legal sector continues to grapple with these issues, one thing is clear: the use of AI in law will only continue to grow. But as this case shows, it's essential that we also address concerns around the responsible use of technology and ensure that justice is served – not just for those involved but for the public at large.