Trial Bundles and Document Lists: Where AI Can (and Can’t) Help

Trial bundles and document lists are the point where months or years of work have to crystallise into something the court can actually use.

AI tools promise to help by:

• extracting information from documents;
• suggesting structure and pagination;
• generating draft indices and cross-references.

This article looks at where AI genuinely helps with trial bundles and document lists in UK litigation – and where human control remains essential.

1. Understand what the court actually needs

Technology should serve the underlying requirements, which are broadly:

• a coherent, paginated bundle so anyone can find the right document quickly;
• document lists that accurately identify what has been disclosed;
• clear linkage between:
  • statements of case,
  • witness statements,
  • key documents, and
  • issues for determination.

AI is most useful in:

• dealing with volume and organisation;
• linking related documents;
• preparing first-draft indices and lists.

It cannot decide which documents are relevant, admissible or strategically important.

2. Using AI to organise and classify documents

Early in the process, AI can help by:

• grouping documents by type (contracts, emails, board minutes, expert reports);
• identifying duplicates and near-duplicates;
• pulling out dates, parties and subject lines for indexing.

For example, you might ask the system to:

• “Cluster these 1,000 documents into logical categories for trial bundle sections.”
• “Extract document date, author, recipient and brief description for an index.”

A human still needs to:

• confirm categories make sense;
• decide bundle sections (core documents, pleadings, disclosure, authorities);
• exclude irrelevant or privileged items.

Think of AI as super-powered paralegal support, not as a disclosure lawyer.

3. Drafting indices and document lists

Once documents are organised, AI can assist with:

• generating draft bundle indices with:

  • section headings,
  • document descriptions,
  • page ranges;

• producing draft lists of documents drawn from metadata and short summaries.

Guardrails:

• ensure descriptions are neutral and accurate (“Email from X to Y re proposed settlement”, not “Defendant admits liability”);
• avoid over-long narrative summaries in indices – save detail for notes to counsel;
• where model-generated descriptions look uncertain, have a reviewer check the underlying documents.

A sensible workflow is:

1. AI proposes index entries and list descriptions.
2. Paralegal or junior checks and edits.
3. Supervisor signs off before filing or service.

4. Cross-referencing bundles, statements and issues

A more advanced use is helping to cross-reference:

• witness statements and their exhibits;
• particulars of claim and supporting documents;
• issues lists and the documents relevant to each.

AI can:

• scan a witness statement and suggest which documents in the bundle appear to support each paragraph;
• propose a mapping table (issue → documents → witnesses).

This is invaluable for:

• preparing counsel;
• structuring opening and closing submissions;
• managing evidence in complex cases.

However, any such mapping must be checked by someone who understands:

• evidential weight;
• hearsay rules;
• tactical considerations.

5. Electronic bundles and navigation

Where electronic bundles are used, AI can assist in:

• generating internal hyperlinks between:

  • indices and documents;
  • tables of contents and sections;
  • witness statements and exhibits;

• checking for broken links or mis-numbered pages.

Many specialist bundling tools already handle these tasks; AI can add:

• smarter suggestions for grouping and cross-referencing;
• quality checks (“flag any exhibits referred to in statements that do not appear in the bundle”).

Again, the outcome must still look and behave like a conventional, court-friendly bundle.

6. Limits you should respect

There are clear red lines:

• do not allow AI to decide which documents go in the trial bundle without human review;
• do not rely on AI-generated summaries as authority for what a document “says” – the underlying text governs;
• do not let technical tools dictate structure in a way that conflicts with court orders or local practice.

Partners and counsel should stay closely involved in:

• agreeing bundle structure;
• identifying “core” vs “background” documents;
• resolving disputes about inclusion/exclusion.

Where OrdoLux fits

OrdoLux is being designed to sit alongside your existing bundling tools by:

• keeping document metadata, matter chronologies and issue lists in one place;
• using AI to help extract dates, parties and brief descriptions from documents stored in or linked to OrdoLux;
• generating first-draft indices and cross-reference tables for review;
• linking bundles back to the matter record so you can see how documents relate to time entries, tasks and advice.

That way, you can use AI to reduce the mechanical pain of bundles and document lists, while keeping strategic and legal decisions in human hands.

This article is general information for practitioners — not legal advice, nor guidance on any specific court’s bundling requirements.

Looking for legal case management software?

OrdoLux is legal case management software for UK solicitors, designed to make matter management, documents, time recording and AI assistance feel like one joined-up system. Learn more on the OrdoLux website.

Further reading

• Building a Matter Chronology with AI: One Source of Truth, Not Ten Spreadsheets
• AI in Disclosure and eDiscovery: Practical Uses and Red Lines