In partnership with
Microsoft has launched Copilot for Legal, and for firms which already pay for Microsoft 365 Copilot the legal plugin arrives inside Word without anyone at the firm having to install or approve it. In the same week the Law Society published a practice note which says, among other things, that firms charging by the hour cannot bill for the time a task would have taken without AI.
AI in Practice
Microsoft's legal AI is arriving in Word whether or not your firm chose it
Microsoft announced Copilot for Legal on 15 October, describing more than 20 legal skills delivered through two plugins of its own. The Word plugin reviews agreements against playbooks, drafts from approved templates and precedents, and applies proposed revisions as tracked changes. The Cowork plugin handles multi-step work across many files and Microsoft 365 apps, such as extracting obligations and deadlines, comparing agreements and building case chronologies. It replaces the narrower Legal Agent which Microsoft previewed in April (Artificial Lawyer). Partner plugins are rolling out through Microsoft's plugin registry, with Harvey, Legora, Bloomberg Law, iManage, NetDocuments, Litera, Thomson Reuters' HighQ and Docusign among the names announced, though LawSites points out that Westlaw, CoCounsel and LexisNexis are missing from the list (LawSites).
The detail which matters most for UK firms is in Microsoft's administrator notice. The capabilities are generally available worldwide to users with Microsoft 365 Copilot commercial licences, with rollout running from mid-October to mid-December, and in Word on the desktop "the legal plugin is enabled by default". No setup is needed. Administrators can switch it off ("Legal Skills in M365 Copilot in Word" in the Microsoft 365 Apps admin centre), and the Cowork plugin has to be added before it can be used (Microsoft 365 Message Center, MC1509799). A great many UK firms run on Microsoft 365, and those which have bought Copilot licences may find that a contract review tool has appeared in front of their fee earners without passing through whatever approval process the firm applies to other legal AI products.
Microsoft says Copilot only works with content each user can already access, honours sensitivity labels, and does not use prompts, responses or documents to train the underlying models, according to the announcement. Those are sensible commitments, and they deal with the confidentiality point more cleanly than a public chatbot would. They do not tell a firm whether the skills were built with English law in mind, which sources sit behind the research skill for a UK user, or how a playbook review handles a clause which is standard in London and unusual in New York. Microsoft's own figures, from more than 1,800 preview users, are that about seven in ten suggested edits were kept; that is an internal measure with no independent benchmark behind it, and it also means that roughly three in ten were rejected by someone who was checking. I would want to know who is doing that checking at a firm where the plugin simply appeared one morning.
Microsoft is the fourth of the large AI companies to build a legal offering in five months, after Anthropic, Google and OpenAI. For a regional or mid-sized firm, that changes the practical question: many will now have to decide how to govern a legal AI tool which came with the software already on every desk, before they have decided whether they wanted one.
Read: Microsoft, the administrator notice at Microsoft 365 Message Center, MC1509799, and the coverage at Artificial Lawyer and Legal IT Insider
On your radar
The Law Society says you cannot bill for the time AI saved, and some AI use needs client consent: The Law Society published a practice note on using AI in legal practice on 21 October. On consent, it says that using AI within a firm's secure systems, where data is not used for training, is unlikely by itself to require informed consent (transparency is the expected approach), but that using confidential client information, including to train AI, is likely to require specific client consent, and it suggests the client care letter or terms of engagement as the place to deal with it. On billing, firms charging by the hour may bill only for time actually and properly spent, not for the time a task would have taken without AI. Time spent operating the tool, reviewing and verifying its output and applying professional judgement can be charged if the client care letter allows it. Any separate AI or technology charge must be explained and agreed in advance and must not duplicate fees already recovered. The note also says the Law Society is not aware of any existing or planned positive duty to use AI. President Brett Dixon's summary: "Solicitors do not need to be technology experts, but they do need to understand the risks." Why it matters for UK lawyers: this is guidance from the representative body rather than SRA regulation, but it is the kind of document a regulator or a court may look to when asking what a reasonable solicitor would have done. Review your client care letter for a short, plain statement about AI use, and check that your time recording narratives describe what was actually done (operating, checking, revising) rather than the task as it would have been done by hand. (Law Society, Legal Futures)
Four in ten adults would consider asking AI instead of a solicitor: A Uswitch survey of 2,000 people, reported on 20 October, found that 39% would consider turning to AI rather than a solicitor for a legal question, mostly because it is faster, available at any hour and free or cheaper, while nearly a quarter of those who had used AI for advice more generally said the guidance turned out to be wrong. It is consumer research by a comparison website rather than a study of legal outcomes. Why it matters for UK lawyers: for private client, family, employment and housing practices, many new clients will already have asked a chatbot and may arrive with a view of the law which is confidently wrong. The Law Society's new note says solicitors may encourage clients to disclose their own AI use, so add a question at intake asking whether the client has used AI on their matter, and what it told them. (Legal Futures)
Judges may only use approved AI tools with UK data residency and web access disabled: Not this week's news, but not covered here before: the judiciary's position statement on judicial use of AI, issued earlier this month by Sir Colin Birss as lead judge for AI, describes a "cautious but positive approach" and says that "every AI output used in judicial work must be reviewed, verified and approved by the responsible judicial office holder", who "remains fully accountable". Only approved tools may be used, with UK data residency, enterprise data protection and web access disabled, and pilots have covered summarisation, transcription, redaction, plain-language writing, chronology-building and document analysis. Why it matters for UK lawyers: the judiciary has set out, in a few lines, the conditions it applies to its own tools, and they are a reasonable benchmark for a small firm deciding which tools to approve. Compare the tools your firm uses against those conditions, and note where a tool falls short and why the firm has accepted it. (Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, Legal Futures)
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.
The AI notetaker that gets the hard words right
Your AI is only as good as what you feed it. Feed it a transcript with your product names, acronyms, and numbers spelled wrong, and you spend the afternoon hand-fixing the output.
Wispr Flow Notetaker uses your dictionary and calendar, so product names, acronyms, numbers, and uncommon names come out spelled right. It pops up when your meeting starts and captures Zoom, Google Meet, Teams, and Slack huddles with one click, no bot joining the call.
Then your meetings show up inside Claude or ChatGPT through the built-in connector. No copy paste. Try Notetaker free on Mac and Windows.
For Review
'AI is not a legal entity' says Law Society (Artificial Lawyer)
A short critical read of the Law Society's practice note from 21 October, which points out that the note is voluntary guidance from a representative body, questions the claim that "AI is no substitute for junior lawyers", and asks what "appropriate" oversight is supposed to mean in practice. Its suggestion that it may soon make more sense to disclose when AI is not being used is worth considering before you settle the AI wording in your client care letter.
Read or listen: Artificial Lawyer
Microsoft launches Copilot for Legal, becoming the fourth AI giant in five months to build out a legal vertical (Bob Ambrogi, LawSites)
A clear comparison of the legal offerings from Anthropic, Google, OpenAI and Microsoft, with launch dates, availability and partners side by side, and the observation that all four "follow essentially the same model". It is the most useful single page to hand to a partners' meeting deciding whether to buy a specialist legal AI product or work with what the firm's existing software now includes; read it with the caveat that it is written from a US perspective.
Read or listen: LawSites
Practice Prompt
Try the below prompt to decide whether, and on what terms, your fee earners should use an AI plugin which has arrived inside software the firm already licenses, such as the Copilot for Legal plugin now enabled by default in Word, taking account of the Law Society's new guidance on client consent and billing. 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 a COLP, practice manager or managing partner at a law firm in England and Wales. An AI capability has become available inside software the firm already licenses, without the firm having gone through its usual approval process for legal technology (for example, a legal plugin enabled by default in Microsoft Word for staff with Microsoft 365 Copilot licences). Your task is to produce a short decision paper on whether to leave the capability on, switch it off, or limit it to a pilot, and on what conditions. You are not assessing whether the product is good, and you are not concluding that its use is lawful, compliant or safe.
Context to apply:
- The capability and how it arrived, from public material only: {e.g. Copilot for Legal Word plugin, enabled by default for Copilot-licensed users from October 2026; say "unknown" if not confirmed}
- Who holds the relevant licences and who can switch the capability on or off: {e.g. 12 Copilot licences held by partners and two paralegals; administrator is an external IT provider}
- What the vendor says about data access, sensitivity labels, training on customer data and where data is processed: {summarise from public material, or say "not yet checked"}
- What the firm knows about which legal sources and jurisdictions the capability draws on: {summarise, or say "unknown"}
- Practice areas and tasks where staff are likely to use it: {e.g. commercial contract review against the firm's playbook, lease reports, drafting from precedents, chronologies in litigation}
- The firm's existing AI policy, approved tools list and supervision arrangements: {summarise, or say "none in writing"}
- The current AI wording, if any, in the firm's client care letter and terms of business: {quote or summarise, or say "none"}
- How the firm bills the relevant work: {e.g. hourly rates, fixed fees for leases, capped fees}
- Any client terms restricting AI use: {describe, or say "none known"}
Produce the paper under these headings:
1. What has changed
State in plain terms what the capability can do, who can currently use it, and whether anyone at the firm decided that they should. Separate what the vendor has confirmed from what has been assumed.
2. Fit with English law and the firm's own precedents
Identify the tasks where the capability's output depends on legal content or playbooks, and set out what the firm would need to confirm about the sources and jurisdiction it draws on before relying on it for English law work. Write these as questions for the vendor or IT provider, not as assumptions.
3. Supervision and checking
For each likely task, state who must check the output, against what (the firm's precedents, the primary source, the client's documents), and how the check is recorded on the file. Identify any route by which unchecked output could reach a client or an opponent, paying particular attention to trainees, paralegals and other non-authorised staff.
4. Client transparency and consent
Drawing on the Law Society's October 2026 practice note as publicly reported (use of AI within secure systems where data is not used for training is unlikely by itself to require informed consent, with transparency the expected approach; use of confidential client information, including to train AI, is likely to require specific consent), state whether the firm's planned use falls into either category, whether the client care letter needs amending, and draft a short plain-English paragraph the firm could consider. Mark clearly where you are uncertain.
5. Billing
Set out how time spent using the capability should be recorded and described for hourly work, reflecting the reported guidance that only time actually and properly spent may be billed, that time operating the tool and reviewing, verifying and revising its output may be charged if the client care letter allows it, and that any separate technology charge must be explained and agreed in advance without duplicating other fees. Identify any fixed-fee work where the firm should consider whether its pricing still reflects the work done.
6. Recommendation
Recommend one of: switch off for now, limited pilot, or wider use. State the conditions, who owns the decision, who will review it, and the review date.
7. What this paper cannot tell you
Flag every point resting on an assumption about the product, the firm's systems, client terms, the Law Society's guidance or the law, and say what the firm would need to establish to replace it with a fact.
Constraints:
- {Add firm-specific constraints, for example a client who has prohibited AI use, an insurer requirement, a licence renewal date, or a limited IT budget.}
- Apply the law of England and Wales, UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018, and the SRA Standards and Regulations. Treat the Law Society practice note as guidance from a representative body, not regulation, and where you are unsure what it says on a point, tell the user to check the note itself.
- Do not invent product features, vendor commitments, regulatory guidance, case law or statutory provisions. If you do not know what the product does, write the question to put to the vendor rather than an assumption.
- Do not conclude that the use is compliant, safe or adequately supervised. The purpose is to make a decision and surface what is not yet known.
- Write in plain English and keep the whole paper short enough to read in five minutes.
- This is a planning aid, not legal, regulatory or compliance advice. The firm, its managers and its COLP remain responsible for any use of the capability and for the work done with it.How did we do?
Hit reply and tell me whether the Copilot legal plugin has already appeared at your firm, and what you decided to do about it.
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!
