header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 March 2025 / Bamdad Shams
Issue: 8109 / Categories: Features , Profession , Artificial intelligence
printer mail-detail

Double trouble or twice as nice?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
211928
How can businesses reconcile the differing approaches to AI regulation on either side of the Channel? Bamdad Shams sets out some practical strategies for legal advisers
  • Artificial intelligence (AI) regulation is increasingly in the spotlight in the legal world as the EU and UK diverge.

The transformative power of artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping industries and human-societal interactions, but its rapid adoption also brings significant governance, accountability, and compliance challenges.

The EU and the UK have each taken a distinct approach to regulating AI systems, with the EU’s AI Act employing a structured, risk-based model, and the UK relying on a more flexible and principles-driven framework. These regulatory differences present practical challenges for businesses and their advisers, underscoring the crucial role of legal practitioners in navigating these complex landscapes.

The EU: a comprehensive framework

The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (the AI Act), a pioneering regulatory effort globally, categorises AI systems into four risk levels—minimal, limited, high, and unacceptable—each with specific compliance obligations. Legal practitioners handling cross-border matters must

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS
Read All
APIL sees off ‘substantial prejudice’ defence
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll