Skip to main content

Primary sources only · last reviewed 13 September 2026

What the regulators now require of you

Dated, quoted verbatim and linked to the source. The short summaries are ours and say so; the quotations are not. What we do about it is in the table at the foot of the page and on the law firms and chambers pages. If a date here is more than a quarter old, ask us whether it is still current.

The instruments

Competence, supervision, verification.

Since November 2025 three regulators have put the same three words at the centre of AI use. The quotations below are verbatim.

  1. Solicitors

    Solicitors Regulation Authority: Misuse of AI: warning notice

    Our summaryA formal warning notice. It restates that solicitors and firms remain accountable for AI-assisted work, that the people they manage must be competent to use it, that authorities put before a court must be genuine and verifiable, and that entering client information into AI tools without proper safeguards risks confidentiality and privilege.

    • “The use of AI does not diminish or transfer your professional responsibilities. You remain accountable for all work and advice delivered to clients, whether or not AI has been used in its preparation.”

      Warning notice, introduction

    • “You ensure that the individuals you manage are competent to carry out their role, and keep their professional knowledge and skills, as well as understanding of their legal, ethical and regulatory obligations, up to date.”

      Code of Conduct for Solicitors, paragraph 3.6, as set out in the notice

    • “To uphold your duty to the court, you should be assured that all submissions of named case law authorities are genuine, relevant, have a verifiable citation, and advance the arguments that are being put forward in your documents.”

      Warning notice, duties to the court

    • “The court reminded lawyers that they must verify all content in legal submissions, as they remain personally responsible for their accuracy, regardless of the tools used in drafting.”

      Warning notice, on Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey

    • “Both paid for and free-to-use AI tools may not provide the contractual, and technical safeguards needed to maintain client confidentiality.”

      Warning notice, confidentiality

    • “Using AI tools in this way will likely breach client confidentiality and as a result, legal professional privilege may be permanently waived and unable to be recovered.”

      Warning notice, on public AI tools

    Read the source
  2. Solicitors

    Solicitors Regulation Authority: Compliance tips for solicitors regarding the use of AI and technology

    Our summaryUpdated guidance. Firms may use any technology they think appropriate, subject to the Principles; the COLP is expected to be responsible for regulatory compliance when new technology is introduced; governance frameworks should underpin the adoption, use and monitoring of AI.

    • “It is open to solicitors and firms to use any technology they think is appropriate for their business.”

      Compliance tips, choice of technology

    • “Make sure your governance frameworks remain fit-for-purpose and underpin the responsible adoption, use and monitoring of AI”

      Compliance tips, governance

    Read the source
  3. The Bar

    Bar Standards Board: Guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence and Other Technologies

    Our summaryCurrent BSB guidance, valid from 18 May 2026. It creates no new regime: AI use is read into the existing Core Duties, in particular CD1 (the court), CD2 (best interests of the client), CD3 (honesty and integrity), CD6 (confidentiality), CD7 (competent standard of work) and CD10 (practice management), with CD5 and CD8 also engaged. Six areas of guidance, from general ethical considerations to your responsibilities when others use AI. Refers to Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey.

    • “We encourage all barristers to maintain a basic level of general technology and AI competence, to understand how it may impact your practice even if you do not use the technologies yourself.”

      Section 2, Competent use of technology

    • “You must be transparent about your use of AI with your client if it materially impacts the nature or scope of your legal service (rC19).”

      Section 5, Each time you use AI, and duties to clients

    Read the source
  4. The Bar

    Bar Council: Updated guidance on generative AI for the Bar

    Our summaryEthics guidance, expressly not BSB Handbook guidance. Names the risks (anthropomorphism, hallucinations, information disorder, bias in training data, mistakes, confidential data) and records that a joint Bar Council and BSB working group is scoping further training and supervision.

    • “Our joint working group with the Bar Standards Board has begun its initial scoping work to identify how barristers can be supported to uphold standards with appropriate further training and supervision.”

      Guidance, introduction

    • “It does not comprise legal advice and is not 'guidance' for the purposes of the BSB Handbook I6.4.”

      Guidance, status

    Read the source

The courts

Ayinde and after.

The duty is personal. The tool is no answer. These are the two cases every partner should be able to name.

R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)

6 June 2025

The Divisional Court, exercising the Hamid jurisdiction, on fabricated authorities placed before the court. The professional duty to check is personal and is not discharged by reliance on a tool.

  • “Freely available generative artificial intelligence tools, trained on a large language model such as ChatGPT are not capable of conducting reliable legal research.”

    paragraph 6

  • “Those who use artificial intelligence to conduct legal research notwithstanding these risks have a professional duty therefore to check the accuracy of such research by reference to authoritative sources, before using it in the course of their professional work.”

    paragraph 7

  • “This duty rests on lawyers who use artificial intelligence to conduct research themselves or rely on the work of others who have done so.”

    paragraph 8

Read the judgment

Cork v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch)

22 May 2026

A solicitors' firm put correspondence before the court quoting a statutory provision that did not exist, drafted with an AI tool by a junior lawyer. The court applied Ayinde: responsibility for research and reasoning cannot be outsourced to an AI system. The firm referred itself to the SRA.

Read the judgment

How our programmes map to this

What the regulator says, and what you get.

The regulator saysWe deliver
The people you manage must be competent to carry out their roleAssessed cohorts by role and practice area, with an attendance and completion record; the online course for everyone else
Supervisors remain accountable for work carried out through othersA leadership session for partners and the COLP; a verification protocol; AI Champions as the first line of supervision
Authorities put before a court must be genuine and verifiableVerification discipline taught and assessed on fictional matters; how to red-team your own work
Client information only where contractual and technical safeguards are in placeGolden rules and an approved-tool list; UK or EU zero-retention endpoints installed; a data-flow map in the diagnostic
Tell the client where AI materially affects the serviceClient care and engagement-letter wording in the policy work
For law firmsFor chambers

Not sure where your firm stands?

Ten questions, two minutes, an honest picture. Then a 20-minute call if you want one.

Take the readiness scorecardBook a 20-minute call