header-logo header-logo

Existing framework sufficient to regulate AI, says Law Society

07 January 2026
Issue: 8144 / Categories: Legal News , Artificial intelligence , Technology , Regulatory
printer mail-detail
There’s no need to change the rules or introduce more legislation to regulate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal sector, the Law Society has said this week in its response to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology’s call for evidence on the AI Growth Lab

The Lab is a government-run cross-economy sandbox for testing AI use in regulated sectors.

Law Society CEO, Ian Jeffery said: ‘The existing legal regulatory framework supports progress. The main challenges don’t stem from regulatory burdens, but rather from uncertainty, cost, data and skills associated with AI adoption. Technological progress in the legal sector should not expose clients or consumers to unregulated risks.’ 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll