Can AI Create Medical Chronologies Legally and Ethically?

Every year, UK lawyers spend tens of hours building medical chronologies from thousands of pages of records. The process, while critical, is slow and costly. A chronology can make or break a case, and building one from raw medical records can take 20 - 40 hours. Artificial intelligence promises to cut this to minutes, while still providing trustworthy, auditable results. The pressing question is not whether AI can save time, but whether these chronologies can be created legally and ethically in the UK.

‍

What does “legal and ethical” mean for AI-generated chronologies

A legal medical chronology must be accurate, traceable, and admissible. An ethical AI medical chronology must respect patient privacy, avoid bias, and remain subject to human oversight.

In the UK, there is currently no specific legislation or case law regulating AI use in litigation, but the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) require transparency about evidence preparation. That means lawyers using AI medical chronology software should disclose and document its use, ensuring fairness for all parties.

Harry Boxall, CEO of Safelink, notes: “The danger isn’t that AI makes mistakes, it’s when those mistakes go unnoticed. Legal teams need clarity, not unexamined shortcuts.” Legal teams cannot simply rely on automation: AI must support, not substitute, the lawyer’s duty to present evidence fairly. This need for balance leads directly to the ethical risks raised by chronology tools.

‍

Common ethical risks to watch with AI chronology tools

AI in medical record review can reduce the heavy burden on lawyers, but ethical hazards arise if it is applied without the right safeguards. Risks range from AI medical chronology bias, where incomplete or skewed datasets distort outputs, to breaches of privacy under the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. When tools operate as opaque systems, lawyers may be unable to explain why certain events were highlighted or omitted, weakening trust and admissibility.

Accountability is another concern. If an AI chronology misrepresents evidence, questions arise over whether liability lies with the lawyer, the clinician, or the software developer. These uncertainties reinforce the need for human oversight.

As Boxall cautions: “Software should never replace legal or clinical judgement, but it must support it by making facts accessible quickly and transparently, with accountability always in human hands.” Here, support means giving legal teams faster access to the facts, while ensuring accuracy and fairness remain in human hands.

‍

How regulation governs AI in medical record use

In the absence of dedicated AI regulation for litigation, the UK relies on existing data, equality, and human rights law. To fill some of these gaps, regulators such as the MHRA are addressing regulatory frameworks for AI in medicine, particularly where tools approach the definition of medical devices.

This work includes developing guidance on how adaptive and data-driven systems should be validated, proposing clearer routes for classifying AI-assisted diagnostic and decision-support tools, and exploring post‑market surveillance requirements to ensure models remain safe, reliable, and up to date as they learn from new data.

For legal professionals, compliance means demonstrating the legal compliance of AI medical tools with data protection obligations, ensuring traceability so every AI medical records summary links back to its source, and auditing outputs to identify possible AI medical chronology bias.

‍

Ensuring patient consent when using AI for chronologies

This question of regulation connects directly to patient rights. Without clear consent, even compliant tools risk legal challenge.

Consent is a safeguard and a legal requirement. Patient consent for AI tools must be explicit, informed, and recorded. Using AI without consent risks a challenge in litigation, particularly in personal injury medical chronology cases.

In practice, this means clearly explaining to the patient what the AI tool will do, what data it will process, and why it is being used. Consent should be obtained in writing at the point when the patient’s records are first being gathered or reviewed for litigation. According to guidance from the GMC, responsibility for formally securing this usually sits with the clinician or records‑holding body, but legal teams must still confirm that valid consent is on file before using any AI system.

A simple example is a claimant instructing a solicitor after a surgical negligence event. Before the solicitor obtains hospital notes for chronology generation, the patient must sign a written consent form authorising both the release of their medical records and the use of AI tools to help analyse them. That form should then be stored securely alongside the case file. The need for explicit, informed consent is clearly outlined in Medical Protection’s Consent guide.  

There are also edge cases. For historic records, consent may relate to disclosures already made under earlier instructions. For deceased patients, the Access to Health Records Act 1990 applies, and AI use must still be explained to the authorised representative. And in accordance with the ICO, where records are disclosed under statutory duty, such as safeguarding or coronial processes, the legal basis for AI processing must be documented even if traditional consent is not required. 

Transparency about AI’s role is essential. As noted in commentary about an Italian Supreme Court ruling, “Consent without transparency is legally worthless, especially where an AI system is used to assess credibility and reputation.”

‍

How transparent AI practices build legal trust

Trust in AI-assisted evidence depends on openness at every stage. Lawyers should be clear about whether an AI medical chronology was used, explain how the chronology software processed the records, and show what human checks and oversight were applied.

This commitment reflects the CPR duty of fairness, giving opposing counsel a fair chance to challenge or scrutinise AI outputs if necessary. Transparent AI medical tools also help reduce fears of hidden bias and reinforce confidence that no party gains an unfair advantage through secretive use of technology.

By embedding transparency into practice, lawyers can demonstrate accountability while maintaining trust in both the chronology and the wider litigation process.

‍

The role of Chronologica in legal and ethical timeline generation

Safelink’s Chronologica is an example of medical chronology software that demonstrates how ethical standards can be applied, illustrating how AI can support law firms without replacing professional judgement.

It uses automated medical chronology tools to extract date-stamped events, highlight gaps in care, and categorise entries. But every event remains traceable back to its source, ensuring defensibility in court.

Chronologica has also been designed to reflect ethical AI medical chronology standards: patient privacy, auditability, and clear human oversight. In doing so, it mirrors the wider principles of transparency and accountability discussed earlier, showing how chronology software can operationalise these safeguards in practice.

Boxall explains: “Accuracy and defensibility are everything. If lawyers cannot show how a chronology was built, the case itself risks collapse.”

‍

Practical benefits of AI in chronology generation

AI chronologies are not just ethical debates; they bring tangible efficiency gains. Studies suggest that AI medical chronology tools can save a significant amount of time that would otherwise be spent on manual medical record review, while improving accuracy.

For firms handling high-volume negligence or personal injury claims, the benefits include faster turnaround of AI medical records summaries, clearer timelines for expert witnesses and barristers, the ability to update chronologies quickly as new records arrive, and reduced risk of missing critical clinical events.

In practice, this can mean a barrister receiving a case file days earlier, or a solicitor identifying missed diagnoses before negotiations begin. Yet these benefits only matter when paired with accuracy and defensibility, since efficiency without reliability risks undermining trust in evidence.

Balancing speed with scrutiny allows AI chronologies to support case strategy, negotiation, and courtroom clarity.

‍

How accurate are AI-generated chronologies compared to human ones?

Few UK-specific studies have directly compared AI-generated medical chronologies with those prepared by lawyers or clinical experts, but insights from adjacent research are instructive.

A 2020 study of AI triage and diagnostic tools found that recommendations were at least comparable to doctors across a range of clinical scenarios, and in some cases safer. Meta-analyses of large language models used in medical exams report accuracy rates of around 61–64% - impressive, though still below human expert levels and lacking the transparency of clinical reasoning.

When applied to chronology generation, AI tools can produce a structured timeline in minutes, compared to the days or even weeks often required for manual review. This efficiency shows clear promise, but accuracy limitations, potential biases, and the absence of human judgment in contextual analysis mean oversight is indispensable.

In litigation, accuracy is not optional. A personal injury medical chronology with omissions or errors can undermine credibility in court. Human review ensures AI outputs are validated against the record, contextualised, and ethically defensible. Current evidence suggests AI can approach human-level accuracy, but its greatest value lies in partnership with professionals, reducing error risk while preserving the scrutiny and accountability that justice demands.

‍

Why clarity must guide AI chronologies

AI can help generate medical chronologies both legally and ethically, but only if its use is framed by transparency, patient consent, accountability, and adherence to existing legal frameworks.

What emerges across the evidence is a balance: automation can reduce human error and save weeks of work, but accuracy and defensibility cannot be delegated. Chronologies must remain explainable and anchored in the record if they are to persuade judges, barristers, and opposing counsel.

The profession should treat AI as a partner, not a substitute, combining the speed of automated medical chronology tools with the judgement and responsibility of lawyers. This ensures that chronologies continue to serve their central purpose: presenting the facts with clarity and fairness.

‍

‍

‍

‍