header-logo header-logo

SRA sounds warning over AI misuse as reports & investigations mount

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality

The regulator published a warning notice this week as AI becomes increasingly embedded in legal research, drafting, document review and administrative work. While acknowledging the technology’s potential to improve efficiency and consumer services, the SRA said inadequate oversight could result in inaccurate information, confidentiality breaches and harm to consumers.

Among the regulator’s key concerns are AI-generated “hallucinations” appearing in legal research, advice, analysis and court submissions, as well as confidential client information being entered into AI tools without appropriate safeguards.

Aileen Armstrong, SRA Executive Director Strategy and Policy, said firms and solicitors must have appropriate oversight and controls in place. She stressed that individuals remain responsible for their work and advice regardless of whether AI has been used.

The warning comes after the SRA received 42 reports concerning potential AI misuse between July 2025 and July 2026. It has ongoing investigations involving inaccurate legal citations, supervision and confidentiality. The regulator also expanded its guidance on effective supervision in June to address AI use.

The notice forms part of the SRA’s wider work on responsible AI adoption. It is participating in the government’s Advisory AI Growth Lab and plans to strengthen its Innovate programme under its proposed 2026/27 business plan.

Commenting on the notice, Law Society of England and Wales vice president Brett Dixon, said: “We welcome the SRA’s warning notice and the clarity the guidance provides around how the use of AI interacts with the provision of legal services by solicitors, particularly in relation to the courts and the protection of client confidentiality.

“As a regulated profession, solicitors have the responsibility to act in the best interests of their client, which includes using AI and other technologies responsibly. The warning notice is a reminder of how this should be applied in practice.

“Technological innovation in legal processes and service delivery is advancing at speed. As the use of AI evolves rapidly, the SRA will need to continue providing the profession with swift and clear guidance so solicitors can use AI with confidence in line with their duties.

“We look forward to continuing our engagement with the SRA to help solicitors navigate this everchanging landscape.”

 

 

 

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
Can a meticulously maintained spreadsheet turn a couple’s informal financial arrangements into legally enforceable obligations? 
back-to-top-scroll