This week is about setting expectations for 2026: less novelty, more workflow, governance, and commercial pressure to prove value. The lead story pulls together Artificial Lawyer’s predictions for the year ahead, then adds an editorial note on what I think UK lawyers should watch most closely.
Legal AI predictions for 2026
Artificial Lawyer’s 2026 articles on predictions for AI are a fascinating read. They read more like a market correction rather than a hype cycle. The key message from contributors seems to be that 2026 is about turning early experimentation into repeatable workflows, with clearer “where does the value sit” decisions across firms, clients, and vendors.
A consistent thread across contributions is that context, process, and integration will matter more than model branding. Tools that reduce friction (matter set up, document handling, permissions, audit trails, and producing work product in usable formats) are likely to win budget over “clever demos”. That pushes firms toward tighter playbooks; defined use cases, agreed prompts, review steps, and clearer data handling positions.
Another prevailing theme is that the operating model changes in small, cumulative ways. Some work shifts earlier (better intake, better triage, and better drafting support), but professional judgment and accountability must and should remain with the lawyer. The commercial implication is uncomfortable but familiar. Clients will keep asking for speed and predictability, and AI will be used as another lever in pricing pressure, not a magic margin machine. This cannot be forgotten when firms consider their AI use going forward.
Finally, most contributors agree that the role of a lawyers will not be redundant anytime soon. i anticipate this will be a relief to readers!
Editorial note: my own bets for UK practice in 2026
Personally, I believe 2026 is the year UK firms get more specific about “how we use AI”, and more honest about “where it is not worth it”. My predictions:
Firms will set firm policies: large firms will already have clear AI policies but I predict that 2026 will be the year this trickles down to even the smallest firms, where margins are tighter and the technology looks more attractive. I anticipate clear policies will be needed in a very 'city-law esque' way that is often unfamiliar to high street law. I encourage those firms to review the AI Golden Rules and ensure, at the very least, these are incorporated in firm wide policies.
The winning use cases are (and will remain) very boring: chronology building, document bundling, first draft letters and pleadings, and internal knowledge retrieval will remain king. These uses will show firms real and immediate cost savings, albeit with with tight human review.
Clients will ask more AI: This is getting common in the corporate world but I predict even individual clients of smaller firms will ask how AI is used in the firm and what protections there are for them, forcing discussions on policies and costs.
AI training will be normalised and role based: There is not an “AI for everyone”, but practical playbooks will be developed by practice area and seniority. What a residential property lawyer needs to be familiar with will differ from an commercial litigator's experience.
Lawyers will not be redundant as a profession: This has been a theme in this newsletter since inception. I feel quite strongly that AI is a very useful tool but it remains a tool to facilitate people doing work that they understand and are qualified for, irrespective of the profession. I personally have litigated against many litigants in person who have tried to use AI to replace the role of a qualified solicitor and it has gone poorly for them. The experience and knowledge in how to use the output of the tool effectively will remain crucial in law and in most other professions.
Given the fast moving nature of the technology, I look forward to reviewing this post in 2027 and see how wrong I am!
Read: Artificial Lawyer and Artificial Lawyer

On your radar
Harvey signals the next phase: “Memory” and personalisation: Harvey says it has reached $190m ARR and is building features aimed at capturing working preferences and institutional knowledge. Why it matters for UK lawyers: “memory” is where governance comes to the forefront, because it forces decisions on what is standard practice, what is client specific, and how you evidence supervision to satisfy regulatory requirements (another reoccurring theme in this newsletter). Read: Artificial Lawyer
Anthropic’s “Cowork” points to more agent style legal workflows: Cowork is framed as a research preview that queues tasks and works more asynchronously, with controlled access to folders and connectors. Why it matters for UK lawyers: this is the direction of travel for document heavy work, but it increases the need for clear permissions and safe sandboxes. There will need to be clear guardrails against destructive actions but I believe agent style workflows will be the future of much legal work. Read: Anthropic
Copyright and AI: UK ministers signal a “reset”: Reuters reports ministers rowing back from an “opt out” framing and committing to a more nuanced approach, with a review due in March 2026. Why it matters for UK lawyers: IP risk, contract positions, and internal model training policies are all affected, especially for clients with valuable content and data assets. Read: Reuters
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.
Can you scale without chaos?
It's peak season, so volume's about to spike. Most teams either hire temps (expensive) or burn out their people (worse). See what smarter teams do: let AI handle predictable volume so your humans stay great.
For Review
AI Growth Lab: what a cross economy AI sandbox could look like (GOV.UK)
A regulator response that is unusually concrete about how a supervised, time limited “lab” might work, including transparency and audit expectations. Useful if you advise regulated clients exploring pilots.
Read or listen: GOV.UK
Grok deepfakes, Ofcom powers, and UK enforcement posture (GOV.UK)
A short but pointed statement that references Online Safety Act powers and signals urgency. Worth scanning if you advise platforms, safety teams, or clients dealing with intimate image abuse risks.
Read or listen: GOV.UK
A practitioner horizon scan for 2026 (Slaughter and May)
A concise “what to watch” note with UK relevant timelines and themes. Useful for in house teams planning workstreams for the year.
Read or listen: Slaughter and May
Practice Prompt
Try the below prompt to build a first draft witness statement from a document bundle. 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.
You are assisting an England and Wales litigation solicitor. You will be provided with a bundle of unorganised documents and emails supplied by a client, typically without any index. Use only the contents of the documents provided. Do not invent facts, dates, documents, parties, events, conversations, or motivations. Where something is missing or unclear, insert a square bracket placeholder stating what is needed and who will obtain it, for example “[FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED: exact date; CLIENT to confirm]” or “[FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED: obtain copy of letter; SOLICITOR to obtain]”. Use numbers for numerical values such as “1,000”.
First, create a working document inventory for traceability. Because there is no index, you must create your own list of all items in the bundle and assign each item a unique reference ID, using this format: “DOC-001”, “DOC-002”, etc. For each item, capture: (1) your assigned ID, (2) the file name or email subject line (if available), (3) date (if available), (4) sender and recipient if it is an email (if available), (5) a 1 sentence description, (6) whether it appears complete or partial, and (7) any immediate gaps you can see (for example “missing attachments referenced in email”). If metadata is not available, use placeholders.
Task: Draft a first pass TRIAL witness statement in standard English format for the County Court, based on the document bundle. The statement must be in the first person, factual, and (after the introductory paragraphs) set out in chronological order using numbered paragraphs. Include hearsay where relevant, but clearly identify it (for example “I was told by [NAME] that…”, or “I understand from [SOURCE] that…”). Avoid legal submissions, argument, commentary, and speculation. Keep the language as close as reasonably possible to what the witness can properly say, while presenting it clearly.
Important approach where the bundle is document led: if a fact appears only in a document and it is not clear that the witness has personal knowledge of it, use cautious wording and identify the document as the source (for example “I refer to [DOC-00X], which states that…”) and add a placeholder to confirm whether the witness can give evidence of that matter from their own knowledge. Flag any point that should be confirmed directly with the witness.
Heading requirements:
1. Use these headings exactly:
“IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [COURT]”
“Claim No. [TBC]”
Then “Between: [CLAIMANT] (Claimant) and [DEFENDANT] (Defendant)”, using placeholders if not stated in the bundle.
2. Include a top right information block with placeholders: “On behalf of: [ ]”, “Witness: [INITIALS AND SURNAME]”, “No. of witness statement: [ ]”, “Exhibits: [ ]”, “Date: [DATE]”.
Introductory paragraphs (before the chronology):
1. “I, [FULL NAME], of [ADDRESS], state as follows:”
2. “I am [NAME OF OCCUPATION, OR IF NONE, DESCRIPTION]. I am the [claimant OR defendant] in this claim.” Leave placeholders if not supported by the bundle.
3. Purpose paragraph: “I make this witness statement in support of [MY CLAIM] [MY DEFENCE].” If the bundle indicates an interim application as well, add a bracketed note.
4. “This statement has been prepared following face-to-face discussions with my solicitor.” If the bundle does not support that, replace with: “[FURTHER INFORMATION REQUIRED: confirm how statement was prepared; SOLICITOR to confirm]”.
5. “The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated, and I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified; facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief”.
Chronological body:
1. After the introductory paragraphs, set out the facts in chronological order in numbered paragraphs. Each paragraph should deal with 1 point or event where possible.
2. Use dates in the format “1st January 2026” where available. If the timing is unclear or only a relative timeframe appears in the bundle, use “[DATE TBC]” and assign an owner.
3. Where something is important but missing, insert a square bracket placeholder and assign owner (CLIENT or SOLICITOR).
4. Assume the bundle may be incomplete. Proactively flag likely missing items (for example “email refers to an attachment not included”, “there should be a response letter but none is provided”, “photos mentioned but not supplied”) and add placeholders with owners.
Documents and exhibits:
1. For EACH DISTINCT DOCUMENT you mention in the witness statement (including emails), on first mention include this exact sentence as a standalone paragraph:
“There is produced and shown to me a copy of [DOCUMENT] marked [EXHIBIT NUMBER].”
2. Keep “[EXHIBIT NUMBER]” generic and do not finalise exhibit numbering.
3. In the [DOCUMENT] description, identify the item using your working inventory ID and a short description, for example “[DOC-003: Email from John Smith to Jane Doe dated 12 March 2025 with subject ‘Repairs’]”. If details are unclear, use “[DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION TBC]” and add an owner.
4. After first mention, you may refer back to it as “the [document] (Exhibit [EXHIBIT NUMBER])”.
5. If multiple items are duplicates or near duplicates, identify that and add a placeholder for which version will be exhibited.
Potential privilege or without prejudice:
If the bundle includes legal advice or without prejudice material, do not include the content in the witness statement narrative. Instead insert: “[POTENTIALLY PRIVILEGED OR WITHOUT PREJUDICE MATERIAL: SOLICITOR to review]”.
Quality controls:
1. If documents conflict, identify the inconsistency neutrally and insert placeholders for clarification and for which account the witness adopts, if any.
2. Do not quote long passages from documents. Summarise and exhibit instead.
3. Keep the statement factual and proportionate, with clear paragraphing and sequential numbering.
Ending:
Include a “Statement of truth” section with standard wording (“I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.”), then signature block:
“Signed: ……………………………………”
“[PRINT NAME]”
“Dated: ……………………………………”
After the witness statement, add a separate internal section (clearly labelled “INTERNAL ONLY, NOT PART OF THE WITNESS STATEMENT”) containing:
1. Traceability table: a table mapping each witness statement paragraph number to the key source document IDs (DOC-00X) relied on, and a short note if the point is hearsay or requires witness confirmation.
2. Gaps and likely missing evidence: a list of missing documents or missing information inferred from the bundle, each with an owner (CLIENT or SOLICITOR).
3. Next steps: a short numbered list of practical steps to finalise the statement, including obtaining missing documents, confirming placeholders with the witness, and deciding which items will actually be exhibited.
Now produce the document inventory, then the draft witness statement, then the internal only section, using only the bundle provided below (or attached above).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!




