The Times reports that the Employment Tribunals are receiving longer, more complex cases as employees use AI to draft and submit claims. AI technology is making it quicker, easier and cheaper to produce detailed submissions thereby helping people to bring their own claims more easily.
You can read the article by George Odling in The Times here. A further piece by Henry Wallop on his week spent in an Employment Tribunal reveals more about a system which is under strain.
The Oddling article is based on Minutes from the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals meeting in March 2026 which report that claims are up by 39% YOY because of the surge in AI-generated submissions.
Applications for interim relief have increased a hundred times over. Previously this was little-known about and rarely invoked. Most experienced employment lawyers will tell you that it is very hard to succeed in an interim relief application which is why they were previously rare. Employment Tribunal offices are now receiving 20 interim relief applications per month mostly from litigants in person who have not had the benefit of legal advice. This places a huge burden on the tribunals because these applications have to be prioritised and dealt with quickly. This may be one of the reasons the delays in the ET are getting worse by the day.
So, what’s the problem with this if AI helps unrepresented employees to bring their claims?
The main problem that I see is that users of AI large language models (LLMs) believe that the information they are being given by AI is fact. They do not seem to understand the concept which is that LLMs scour the web for data and collate what they find. The information is not necessarily legally accurate and often gives unrealistic views on what people can expect from Employment Tribunal litigation. If I do a search on an LLM about a tribunal claim I know and understand the results are mixed. There is some information that is correct but it does not match the advice you could get from a qualified and experienced employment lawyer.
We are seeing client enquiries from clients who believe that certain forms of conduct give them rights in the tribunal that simply do not exist. It might be evidence of an attitude of an employer but an employer’s failure to meet a data subject access request is not an actionable claim in the ET. It adds nothing to the value of any claim. It should not even be mentioned other than as displaying an attitude and that comes in witness evidence not in your statement of claim.
AI is not yet able to give precise legal advice. AI does not convey any nuance. It does not give an accurate view on the current employment market, the economic environment, the prospects of succeeding in a claim, the value of a claim. In short AI is not fit for purpose when it comes to employment legal advice.
If you add to this the fact that litigants in person are heavily relying on AI to prepare their cases you end up with the situation which is occurring which is long, overly complex claims where in fact what might be a decent, winnable claim is shrouded in overly-complex language and which is not going to win an LIP any favours with an employment tribunal judge. When we are assisting a client we sift through all the data and decide which claims are the best and the most winnable. AI does not do this. The extent to which AI has been adopted wholesale without any apparent consideration of its limitations in relation to employment legal advice is causing havoc.
Detractors will say “you don’t like AI because it will get rid of fat cat lawyers”. I would say this: AI has its uses. AI is changing and developing every time. I am quite sure that in time it will be able to give sound legal advice. But we are not there yet. AI is very useful for analysing huge data sets. For finding out if my dog needs to see a vet after sustaining a bee sting. For finding out what is the best vacuum cleaner for a house with 4 dogs and a bunch of cats. What AI cannot yet do is give proper, sound legal advice. It’s regrettable that some people have no access to legal advice because of how the system is funded but if you have a really good case which is worth pursuing you will find a lawyer who will take it on for the simple reason that they only get paid if it’s a winnable claim. This is how to secure legal advice if you cannot pay fees, not reliance on AI. At didlaw we do not accept cases that are funded in this way. We are too small to bear the financial burden because claims now take so long.
If you have limited access to legal advice that might be enough to enable you to decide whether you want to spend the next 2 to 3 years litigating. You could ask a good firm to simply give you an opinion on what you have and what it might be worth and whether the claim has any value. Given that with all claims you are under a duty to mitigate your loss, only if you are unable to ever work again or can secure a much less well-paid job is it likely that a claim that might be hear 3 to 4 years from now will have legs. Be careful about investing in fees unless you are sure the claim is solid.
At didlaw we sometimes don’t make any friends because we tell clients honestly about their case. We don’t want to accept cases where we cannot add value. Unless we can see that your claim is very strong or we believe we can elicit a resolution we will not take on your case and even then we will inform you that you are investing a sum of money to try to seek a solution, with no guarantees. What an experienced employment lawyer can add is they know how employers behave. They have been up against them many times. They can add a dose of realism that AI cannot. Many firms will take on any case because all cases mean fees. That is not our vibe.
