In partnership with
Good morning, and Merry Christmas. If you are reading this on Boxing Day, I hope you have found a quiet corner between family, food, and the inbox. This week’s theme is simple: AI is already changing legal work, but the hard parts are governance and professional accountability, not drafting speed.
AI in Practice
The LSB puts generative AI on the “driver of change” list, and that should shape governance.
The Legal Services Board’s new State of Legal Services 2025 frames “the rise of generative AI” as part of the current risk and opportunity set for the sector, alongside digital service delivery and shifting consumer expectations. The interesting bit is not the novelty, but the regulatory subtext: innovation is always welcomed, but only if it sustains public confidence and consumer protection. This implies more upcoming scrutiny of how tools are supervised and explained to clients. (Legal Services Board)
The Spectator piece, with a sceptical read
“AI will kill all the lawyers” is persuasive and eye catching because it describes a real competence shock, but it is still a story, not a real business case. (The Spectator)
The article’s core move is to show a barrister feeding a redacted civil appeal into a frontier model and receiving an impressively structured output quickly. That definitely rings true for certain tasks: summarising, issue spotting, drafting a first pass, and generating questions you might not think to ask under time pressure.
However, this author has real concerns with the click grabbing headline. The missing parts, which matter in practice, are:
Reliability. If you cannot explain where a proposition came from, you cannot safely rely on it.
Confidentiality. You can cause real professional issues with the wrong tool, the wrong settings, or the wrong internal behaviour.
Client and court accountability. If a tool is wrong, the responsibility does not evaporate. I cannot see a judge forgiving a mistake simply because you didn't check sources. That must be a professional issue worthy of regulatory intervention.
The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. AI tools are, in my humble opinion, likely to transform the profession but still require supervision and handling by qualified and experienced lawyers, especially under the current regulatory framework.
On your radar
Privilege risk, and why guardrails matter. An excellent cautionary note on how casual internal use of public AI tools can create privilege problems, particularly where staff treat AI as informal legal advice, or paste sensitive content into systems without contractual and technical protections. This has been a key concern of mine and Hannah Mahon handles it excellently. Recommended read. (The Times)
Copyright policy momentum and what it may mean for legal teams. A summary from Wiggin of the government’s progress statement following the AI and copyright consultation, including the scale of responses and the likelihood of continued policy movement. Worth keeping an eye on developments. (Wiggin)
AI does not “solve” burnout it changes the pressure profile. Clyde and Co’s chief people officer argues that AI may reduce repetitive work but could introduce new pressures. Worth reading as a reminder that productivity tooling can also increase pace expectations and supervision load. Like many technological advances, it may not ease the burden as expected. (Financial News)
Ad Break
In order to help cover the running costs of this newsletter, please check out the advert below. In line with my promises from the start, adverts will always be declared and actual products that I have tried, with some brief thoughts from me.
The Deep View is an excellent newsletter for distilling AI news in general.
Stop Drowning In AI Information Overload
Your inbox is flooded with newsletters. Your feed is chaos. Somewhere in that noise are the insights that could transform your work—but who has time to find them?
The Deep View solves this. We read everything, analyze what matters, and deliver only the intelligence you need. No duplicate stories, no filler content, no wasted time. Just the essential AI developments that impact your industry, explained clearly and concisely.
Replace hours of scattered reading with five focused minutes. While others scramble to keep up, you'll stay ahead of developments that matter. 600,000+ professionals at top companies have already made this switch.
For Review
Regulatory watchlist, global items with UK implications. Simmons and Simmons’ round up is a useful summary for what may land in client conversations (particularly for corporate clients), even when the legal changes are offshore. (Simmons & Simmons)
The full LSB report. If you only read 1 part, focus on how it frames tech adoption, risks to confidence, and the implication that “responsible innovation” is now a regulator expectation, not a nice to have. (Legal Services Board)
Practice Prompt
Copy, paste, and adapt.
Remember, keep client data out unless you are using an approved, secure environment.
Prompt:
“You are my litigation assistant. I will provide (1) a pleaded case summary, (2) a chronology, and (3) 5 key documents as short extracts.
Step 1: produce a structured issues list, stating assumptions and uncertainties.
Step 2: propose a draft skeleton argument outline with headings only, no authorities.
Step 3: ask me 10 targeted questions that would materially change the outline.
Step 4: after I answer, revise the outline and highlight what changed and why.
Do not invent facts. If a point depends on an authority, flag it as ‘authority required’.”
How did we do?
If you have 30 seconds, reply with:
1 item you want more of
1 item you want less of
1 practical workflow you would like a template for
Final seasonal note: I hope you and your teams have had a peaceful Christmas, and that Boxing Day brings a genuine pause before 2026 planning begins.
Serhan, UK Legal AI Brief
Disclaimer
Guidance and news only. Not legal advice. Always use AI tools safely.