In partnership with

This week is about AI business models, pricing, and procurement. A UK firm is now offering AI only contract reviews from £17.50, with a regulated escalation route for reserved work.

AI in Practice

A UK business law provider (AiLA) is offering contract reviews conducted entirely by AI, starting at £17.50 plus VAT for simple agreements. It provides output framed as a red amber green risk analysis against a lawyer built playbook. Clients can then choose to escalate to a fixed fee quote for human legal advice. (Legal Futures)

This matters because it compresses expectations fast. Even if your own firm is not competing for £17.50 reviews, clients will increasingly ask why a “first pass” contract triage cannot be near instant and near zero cost. That pressure is bound to show up sooner rather than later.

The innovation also forces clarity on what is being sold. Is it a legal service, a risk scoring product, or a workflow tool the client uses themselves? In England and Wales, the line matters for regulation, supervision, complaints handling, and professional indemnity positioning. If the model is “AI first, lawyer only when requested”, the controls around disclaimers become very important.

This kind of offering will shape how courts and regulators think about “reasonable” competence and checking. If the market treats AI triage as normal, the regulatory conversation moves from “can we use it” to more of “what controls did you use, and can you evidence them”.

Takeaways

  • Act: Identify 2 contract types where your team already does repeatable “first pass” triage (for example NDAs and supplier terms). Define a simple internal playbook and test whether your current tool can produce a consistent issues list with clear “needs lawyer review” triggers. See the Practice Prompt below for an idea.

  • Watch: More UK providers offering AI priced work with regulated and unregulated structures, and more clients asking for fixed fee escalation pathways.

  • Risk: Scope creep and over reliance. If an output is presented as a “review”, your client may treat it as advice. Make sure supervision, disclaimers, and evidence of checking are built into the process, especially where reserved activities or high stakes clauses are involved.

On your radar

  • HSBC pilots Harvey AI in Global Legal: HSBC has announced a strategic partnership and pilot to bring Harvey into its Global Legal function, emphasising enterprise controls and security aligned to regulatory expectations. Why it matters for UK lawyers: in house rollouts are increasingly becoming a baseline expectation. (HSBC)

  • Harneys moves from trial to firmwide rollout: Harneys is also rolling out Harvey across all offices and all employees after a structured trial process that tracked time saved and accuracy feedback. The firm also tried CoCounsel and Legora. Why it matters for UK lawyers: adoption stories are moving on from “we tried it” to “we measured it”, which is exactly the direction procurement and risk teams prefer. (Legal IT Insider)

  • X tightens Grok image features amid Ofcom investigation: X has announced restrictions to stop Grok being used to sexualise images of real people, against the backdrop of an Ofcom investigation under the Online Safety Act framework. Why it matters for UK lawyers: clients will want practical advice on platform duties and risk assessments. It is worth watching how these measures develop in coming months. (The Guardian)

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 Future of Tech. One Daily News Briefing.

AI is moving faster than any other technology cycle in history. New models. New tools. New claims. New noise.

Most people feel like they’re behind. But the people that don’t, aren’t smarter. They’re just better informed.

Forward Future is a daily news briefing for people who want clarity, not hype. In one concise newsletter each day, you’ll get the most important AI and tech developments, learn why they matter, and what they signal about what’s coming next.

We cover real product launches, model updates, policy shifts, and industry moves shaping how AI actually gets built, adopted, and regulated. Written for operators, builders, leaders, and anyone who wants to sound sharp when AI comes up in the meeting.

It takes about five minutes to read, but the edge lasts all day.

For Review

Why lawyers use legal AI, and why ROI debates go wrong (Artificial Lawyer)
A useful framing of 4 different motives for adoption, from reducing unbillable work to capacity expansion, with the key point that the “why” drives whether ROI will ever show up in the numbers. Good for sense checking internal business cases.
Read or listen: Artificial Lawyer

HSBC’s primary announcement, for how in house teams pitch controls (HSBC)
Worth reading as a clean primary source example of the language in house teams are using: “controls and security aligned to regulatory expectations”, plus a focus on shifting lawyers to higher value work.
Read or listen: HSBC

How Harneys tested tools and captured time saved (Legal IT Insider)
Less about the vendor, more about the method. A practical reference point for any firm trying to move from anecdotes to measurable adoption data.
Read or listen: Legal IT Insider

Practice Prompt

Try the below prompt to build a chronology from documents. Ensure you fill in context and constraints and other aspects marked with {}. Remember to adhere to the Golden Rules and do not upload confidential or privileged information to public tools.

This week’s low risk 30 minute exercise:

Take a bundle of freehold purchase documents and prepare an initial contract review.

Prompt (copy and adapt):

You are assisting an England and Wales residential conveyancing solicitor acting for a BUYER on a standard resale FREEHOLD purchase. You will be given a disorganised bundle of documents and emails supplied by the client and or seller’s solicitors. The bundle may have no index and may be incomplete.

Assume there is a mortgage, but take the lender identity, any mortgage offer details, and any lender requirements only from the documents provided. If the lender or its requirements are not evidenced in the bundle, flag this clearly as a missing item rather than guessing.

Hard rules:
Use only the text in the provided documents. Do not invent facts, dates, clauses, parties, or documents.
If information is missing, unclear, illegible, or contradictory, insert a square bracket placeholder stating what is needed and who will obtain it, for example “[FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED: draft contract not provided; SELLER’S SOLICITORS to provide]” or “[FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED: lender identity and mortgage offer; CLIENT to confirm and provide]”.
Use figures for all numbers, money, and dates (for example 01 February 2026, £250,000, 10%).
When you make any factual statement, cite where it came from so a lawyer can trace it, using the format “Source: [document name, page number or clause or paragraph or email timestamp]”.
If page numbers are not available, cite the best available locator (for example clause number, paragraph number, section heading, or email subject plus timestamp).
Keep quotations short and only where necessary to identify the relevant wording.

Primary objective:
Produce a first pass contract pack review and enquiries note suitable for the conveyancing file, focused on legal risk, mortgage readiness, and practical completion mechanics, based strictly on what is evidenced in the bundle. Where the usual conveyancing documents are missing, identify and flag them.

Deliverables and structure:

Step 1: Inventory and gap analysis
1. Create a “Documents received” list, naming each item exactly as it appears in the bundle (including email subjects where relevant).
2. Create a “Missing or expected documents” list for a standard resale FREEHOLD purchase. Include, where applicable:
   a. Draft contract and any special conditions
   b. Official copies of register and title plan (and any filed plan or deeds referred to)
   c. TA6 and TA10 (and TA7 if relevant), plus any additional protocol forms present
   d. Property information attachments referred to in forms or replies
   e. Replies to enquiries (if any) and supporting documents
   f. Searches (local authority, drainage and water, environmental), and any location specific searches if referenced
   g. Mortgage offer and any lender instructions if present in the bundle
   h. Draft TR1, completion information and undertakings, and any SDLT or registration related documentation if already circulated
If you cannot tell whether an item is missing because the bundle is unclear, say so and insert a placeholder.

Step 2: Extract the deal terms from the bundle
Extract, only if evidenced:
Parties, property address, title number, price, deposit, tenure confirmation (freehold), fixtures and fittings, proposed exchange and completion dates, any chain references, any agreed variations, and any special conditions or non standard terms.
Flag any missing or inconsistent points with placeholders and cite the relevant sources.

Step 3: Legal review and issue spotting (freehold focused)
Review all documents provided and identify issues under these headings, but only where evidenced. If a check is standard but there is no evidence in the bundle, treat it as an outstanding check and insert a placeholder rather than a conclusion.

A. Contract terms
Deposit amount and stakeholder status, default interest, rescission provisions, notices, risk and insurance, title guarantee, apportionments, VAT, any limitation clauses, any unusual special conditions.

B. Title, property, and land
Class of title, charges, restrictions, notices, cautions, third party interests, easements, rights of way, covenants, boundary indicators and discrepancies, access and adopted highway issues, parking, services and wayleaves, rentcharges if any, estate rentcharges if any, any title plan anomalies.

C. Planning and building control, alterations, guarantees
Planning permissions and conditions, building regulations completion certificates, listed building or conservation area references if evidenced, party wall matters if referenced, guarantees and warranties (damp, timber, roofing, windows, electrical, gas), missing consents, missing paperwork. Do not assume compliance.

D. Searches and environmental
Summarise results of any searches provided and flag adverse entries, plus what further action is needed. If searches are missing, identify that and propose which searches are required, but do not speculate on results.

E. Mortgage and lender readiness
Assume a mortgage exists but rely on documents for the lender identity and requirements.
1. If the mortgage offer or lender requirements are in the bundle, identify conditions precedent to exchange and completion, and any matters that may need lender reporting.
2. If the lender is identified but specific requirements are not included, insert: “[FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED: lender requirements for [LENDER], including UK Finance Lenders’ Handbook Part 2; SOLICITOR to check]”.
3. If the lender is not identified, insert: “[FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED: lender identity and mortgage offer; CLIENT to confirm and provide]”.
Avoid giving lender handbook content unless it is included in the documents.

F. Practical completion and post completion mechanics
TR1 execution and identity requirements, undertakings required, completion statement and apportionments, discharge of seller’s mortgage, keys and vacant possession, SDLT information, registration steps, and any title restrictions requiring certificates or third party consents.

Step 4: Enquiries and actions table
Output a table with these columns:
1. Issue
2. Why it matters (legal and practical)
3. Evidence and citation (Source: [doc, locator])
4. Risk rating (Low, Medium, High)
5. Recommended action (enquiry, contract amendment, indemnity, report to client, report to lender, specialist advice, further search)
6. Draft enquiry wording or draft amendment wording (as appropriate)

Draft enquiries should be short, specific, and anchored to the evidence. Where the issue is missing information, draft the enquiry as a request for the missing document or confirmation.

Step 5: Exchange readiness summary
Provide:
1. “Top issues to resolve before exchange” (prioritised) with citations.
2. “Likely lender reporting points” with citations and cautious suggested framing for solicitor review.
3. “Client report points” in plain English with citations.
4. “Assumptions and gaps” list, each as a placeholder request stating who will obtain it.

Quality controls:
If two documents conflict, state the conflict, cite both sources, and propose the enquiry to resolve it.
If a document appears unsigned, undated, or incomplete, flag it with a placeholder and cite the source.
Keep tone calm, professional, and sceptical. This is general support for a solicitor and must not be treated as legal advice to a client.

How did we do?

Hit reply and tell me what you would like covered in future issues or any feedback. We read every email!

Thanks for reading,

Serhan, UK Legal AI Brief

Disclaimer

Guidance and news only. Not legal advice. Always use AI tools safely.

Recommended Newsletters

Below are a few newsletters that I recommend, for various reasons. Check them out!

Staying Ahead with AI

Staying Ahead with AI

Step by step on how to use the latest in AI and how it ranks against what you're already using!

There's An AI For That

There's An AI For That

The #1 AI newsletter. Read and trusted by over 2.4 million readers, including employees at Google, Microsoft, Meta, Salesforce, Intel, Samsung, Zoom, Wix, HubSpot, Nebius, Suno, Zapier, as well as ...

Superhuman AI

Superhuman AI

Keep up with the latest AI news, trends, and tools in just 3 minutes a day. Join 1,000,000+ professionals.

Keep Reading

No posts found