This week’s theme is “clarity over excitement”. The Law Society has put a marker down: the profession does not need more relaxed rules to adopt AI, but it does need clearer guidance on how existing duties apply.
AI in Practice
The Law Society has responded to government work on the proposed AI Growth Lab and potential sandboxing, arguing that existing legal regulation is not the blocker to innovation. The bigger problem is uncertainty about how current obligations translate into day to day AI use, particularly where client data and regulated activities are involved.
The practical list of “unknowns” will look familiar to anyone trying to roll AI out safely in a UK firm or legal team: whether inputs must be anonymised, what “good” looks like for data security and storage, when human oversight is mandatory, how AI can support reserved activities (court work, conveyancing, probate), and where responsibility lands if AI output causes harm.
For firms, the point is not theoretical. If two thirds of lawyers are already using AI tools (as the Law Society states), the risk profile is already here. The immediate opportunity is to convert vague “be careful” messaging into internal controls.
Read: (The Law Society)
On your radar
Agentic AI is moving from concept to consumer workflows: The ICO has published a report on “agentic commerce”, warning that systems that can act for people (including making purchases) raise obvious data protection and trust issues. Why it matters for UK lawyers: expect more questions from clients about lawful basis and accountability when AI is taking actions, not just generating text. (ICO).
Law firm profits are still rising alongside AI spend: A Thomson Reuters survey, reported in Artificial Lawyer, suggests profitability remains strong while tech spending continues to climb, implying that AI’s real workflow impact is still uneven. Of course, as AL points out, this may be a final surge of profitability before a crash... Why it matters for UK lawyers: the client conversation is likely to shift from “do you use AI” to “show me the outcomes and controls”, particularly where AI is used to justify efficiency claims. (Thompson Reuters) (Artificial Lawyer)
“Build your own tools” platforms are proliferating: Case.Dev is pitching a platform aimed at legal teams who want to assemble their own workflows using pre built components and models. Why it matters for UK lawyers: even if you do not adopt this product, the increasing trend shows a risk of shadow development using live client data without procurement or an audit trail (Artificial Lawyer).
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.
Hubspot kindly continue to support this newsletter. Please reciprocate that support by checking out their advert below about marketing, that could be useful for law firm managers.
The Future of AI in Marketing. Your Shortcut to Smarter, Faster Marketing.
This guide distills 10 AI strategies from industry leaders that are transforming marketing.
Learn how HubSpot's engineering team achieved 15-20% productivity gains with AI
Learn how AI-driven emails achieved 94% higher conversion rates
Discover 7 ways to enhance your marketing strategy with AI.
For Review
AI Growth Lab: what the government was asking for (GOV.UK)
A useful primary source for understanding the “sandbox” direction of travel, and why the Law Society is pushing for clarity on existing duties rather than regulatory loosening.
Read or listen: (GOV.UK)
ICO statement on Grok AI on X (ICO)
Short but worth reading as a signal of regulatory posture: the ICO confirms it has contacted X and xAI about compliance measures and protection of individuals’ rights.
Read or listen: (ICO)
DRCF regulatory guidance hub testing, starting with “Agentic AI” (DRCF)
A window into how UK regulators are coordinating on emerging AI categories. Useful for in house teams in regulated sectors, and for firms advising them.
Read or listen: (DRCF)
Practice Prompt
This week, spend 30 minutes stress testing your internal approach to “AI assisted case organisation”. Take a small, closed set of non confidential documents (or anonymised extracts) and see whether your tool can produce a usable chronology with source pinpoints and clear uncertainty flags. The test is successful only if a supervisor can trace every entry back to a document without guesswork.
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.
Prompt (copy and adapt):
You are assisting a UK legal team. You will be given a bundle of documents and emails that may be incomplete and unorganised.
Context you must follow:
Matter: {brief description}
Parties: {party names or placeholders}
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Confidentiality: {state whether documents are anonymised and whether any redactions exist}
Output purpose: first pass chronology for solicitor review, not legal advice
Rules:
Use only what is in the documents provided. Do not invent facts, dates, events, or documents.
If a date is missing or ambiguous, write: [DATE UNCLEAR: explain what is missing and which document it relates to].
If you infer an event, label it clearly as an inference and explain why.
Always include a “Source” field that identifies the document (by filename or email subject and date) and, where possible, a short quote or pinpoint reference.
Flag privilege risk: if a document appears to be solicitor client communications or litigation strategy, label it: [POTENTIALLY PRIVILEGED: handle with care].
Task:
1. Create a chronology table with columns:
Date
Event (1 sentence)
Parties involved
Document type (email, letter, contract, note, screenshot, etc.)
Source (document identifier plus pinpoint)
Confidence (High, Medium, Low)
Follow up needed (Yes or No) with details
2. After the table, list:
Missing documents you would expect to see
Key factual gaps to confirm
Any inconsistencies between documentsHow 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.