The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) today (17 August) published a warning notice to remind law firms and solicitors of their professional obligations when using AI, warning: “If you fail to have proper regard to this warning notice, you are at risk of disciplinary action.”
The SRA says it received 42 reports relating to the potential misuse of AI between July 2025 and July 2026.
The warning states that there are two areas of particular concern. The first is that court or other documents contain false or incorrect information due to the “misuse” of AI. That might include hallucination. The second is confidential client information being entered into AI tools that lack appropriate safeguards, risking potential breaches of confidentiality and wider data protection requirements.
SRA executive director strategy and policy, Aileen Armstrong said: “AI is already benefiting consumers and legal professionals, and we are increasingly seeing firms use it in innovative ways to improve services and efficiency. However, the use of AI does not change the professional standards expected of solicitors and law firms.
“Firms and solicitors must have appropriate oversight and controls in place to make sure consumers are receiving high-quality legal services and that our standards are met. Individuals remain responsible for the work they produce and the advice they provide, regardless of whether AI is used, or not.’
Key findings to note include:
AI hallucinations
- AI has “no separate legal personality” – solicitors/regulated individuals remain accountable for their work output;
- Firms must have effective governance systems and controls to manage risks
- Solicitors must ensure they put forward representations to the court that are “properly arguable” – misleading the court is regarded as “one of the most serious offences that an advocate or litigator can commit”;
- To uphold your duty you should be assure that all case law authorities are genuine, relevant and have a verifiable citation;
- The judgment in R (on the application of Ayinde) v Haringey LBC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) illustrates how courst are likely to treat the submission of fabricated cases and citations. The judgment notes that it is likely to be appropriate for the court to make reference to the regulator;
- If you put false material before the court, this could be considered contempt of court, and may constitute interfering with the administration of justice;
- Those who supervise junior or non-authorised colleagues may also be found to have breached regulatory requirements and professional duties if false citations are put before the court without adequate review and/or supervision.
Client confidentiality
- In UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) raised concerns about the use of AI in case preparation. While the primary focus of the decision was on the submission of inaccurate, AI-generated legal authorities, the Tribunal also made broader observations about client confidentiality and the potential impact on legal professional privilege. The Tribunal observed at paragraph 21 that ‘to put client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool, such as ChatGPT, is to place this information on the internet in the public domain’;
- Using AI tools in this way will likely breach client confidentiality and legal privilege may be permanently waived;
- Both free to use and paid for AI systems pose risks, depending on terms, settings and technical architecture;
- Client information should only be entered into AI systems where appropriate contractual, technical and organisational safeguards are in place to protect confidentiality. Firms and solicitors should satisfy themselves that client data remains within a secure environment, is not accessed by unauthorised third parties, is not used to train AI models except where explicitly authorised and appropriate to do so, and is not retained longer than necessary;
- It is incumbent on all managers and employees of SRA regulated firms to understand their obligations in this regard given the irreparable consequences of sharing clients’ confidential information and the permanent waiver of privilege that can occur as a result;
- For those solicitors working in-house, you should be particularly mindful about the type of AI tools available to you. The business may have developed in-house AI tools for their particular field of work but these may not necessarily be specifically designed for legal work. Particular care must be taken when utilising AI in an in-house context.
- In-house solicitors should also consider whether the organisation’s interests in furthering its use of AI might conflict with any of their own duties and professional responsibilities under the Principles and Code of Conduct, dependent upon their role and use of those tools.
You can read the warning notice here: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/misuse-ai/
The warning notice forms part of a wider programme of work on AI. The regulator is playing a key role in the government’s first Advisory AI Growth Lab which is designed to provide the opportunity for innovators to responsibly develop and adopt AI products within existing regulatory frameworks. Applications for the Advisory AI Growth Lab are open until 27 September.