LexisNexis is pitching genAI “workflows” that combine prompts, drafting, review, and citation checking into repeatable processes, delivered via its Protégé assistant. The initial launch is described as a limited US commercial preview, with broader rollout later in 2026, but the direction of travel is clear. (Artificial Lawyer)

For UK lawyers, the practical point is that seems to show a new operating model. If workflows can be tested, saved, and shared across teams, then your playbooks, precedents, and checklists start to look like product features. That is very attractive for consistency, and training, but it also raises the bar on governance because a shared workflow can scale simple mistakes as quickly as it scales good practice.

Lexis also describes a no code workflow builder where users can choose a model and design multi step workflows, then share them across teams. Whether the UK version mirrors the US integration details is not yet clear, so treat this as a signal rather than an announced product launch.

Takeaways

Read: Artificial Lawyer

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.

ADD CONTEXT

Tech moves fast, but you're still playing catch-up?

That's exactly why 100K+ engineers working at Google, Meta, and Apple read The Code twice a week.

Here's what you get:

All delivered twice a week in just 2 short emails.

Join 100K+ engineers

CMA proposals on Google Search, including AI Overviews controls (GOV.UK / CMA)

If you advise publishers, platforms, or brands that rely on search visibility, this is worth a read. The CMA proposals include publisher controls so content can opt out of being used in AI features such as AI Overviews, or to train AI models outside Google Search, with feedback due 25 February 2026.

Read or listen: GOV.UK

AI disputes in 2025: practical lessons for litigation teams (Taylor Wessing)

A useful roundup of how AI issues are showing up in real disputes, including fake citations, evidence reliability, and reminders about duties to the court. This is ley reading for litigation lawyers.

Read or listen: Taylor Wessing

Judicial guidance on AI: what courts are worried about (Judiciary, October 2025)

Not new, but still essential. Covers hallucinations, confidentiality, and personal responsibility for material produced in a judge’s name. It also contains practical flags like hidden “white text” prompts. If you have not baked this into litigation training, now is a good time.

Read or listen: Judiciary

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.

Use this prompt for an early assessment of a litigation matter.

Along with the prompt, paste the claim form or key letters plus any emails and notes. Use the evidence map to brief a paralegal. Run after the first client interview to convert placeholders into a draft advice letter structure.

You are assisting a practising England and Wales litigation solicitor. This is not legal advice. Use only the materials I provide. Do not invent facts, dates, causes of action, or procedural steps. Where something is unclear, insert square bracket placeholders stating what is needed and who will obtain it. Use UK spelling and figures for numbers and dates. Task: Prepare an early case assessment that is fit for an internal file note and can be converted into a client advice. Output required: (1) Parties and roles, including any missing corporate details to verify. (2) A chronology table with source references to the documents as provided. (3) Issues and causes of action: identify the most plausible legal routes in neutral terms, and state what facts must be proven for each, separating what we have versus what is missing. (4) Defences and counterclaims that may realistically arise. (5) Evidence map: list each key fact, the evidence we have for it, the evidence we need, and the likely witness. (6) Procedure and timetable: pre action steps, ADR options, jurisdiction and venue considerations, any urgent applications, and key deadlines to diarise, flagging uncertainties. (7) Remedies and quantum: what the client can realistically get, what we need to value it, and any mitigation issues. (8) Costs and risk: costs exposure, Part 36 or settlement mechanics to consider, reputational or regulatory angles. (9) Recommended strategy in 2 tracks: Plan A (primary) and Plan B (if key facts do not support Plan A). (10) A short list of questions for the client interview, ordered to de risk the matter quickly. If you cite law, add footnotes with the authority and a link where available, and clearly distinguish law from factual assumptions.

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

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

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