Lawyers risk sanctions for refusing to use AI, UK guidance warns
The guidance suggests that refusing to use AI may, in some cases, amount to a breach of professional duty. According to the taskforce, lawyers are expected to consider AI in the same way other professionals use technology to improve accuracy, efficiency and outcomes.
Lawyers in the United Kingdom could face professional sanctions if they fail to use artificial intelligence in circumstances where a reasonable lawyer would have relied on it to improve their work.
The warning is contained in new guidance from the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, a body backed by the Ministry of Justice and chaired by Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls.
The guidance suggests that refusing to use AI may, in some cases, amount to a breach of professional duty.
According to the taskforce, lawyers are expected to consider AI in the same way other professionals use technology to improve accuracy, efficiency and outcomes.
The guidance means a lawyer who negligently refuses to use AI in appropriate circumstances could face regulatory consequences.
Those sanctions could include being prevented from practising as a solicitor or barrister.
Matthew Lavy KC, a barrister on the UKJT panel, said the legal profession is approaching a point where failure to use AI may itself become actionable.
The panel compared the issue to a radiologist refusing to use AI tools that are highly effective in identifying cancerous tumours.
It suggested that where technology clearly improves professional work, refusing to use it without good reason could expose a practitioner to liability.
The taskforce, however, also warned that lawyers could be punished for misusing AI.
This includes relying on AI-generated work without proper checks or submitting documents that contain false citations and fictitious cases.
The warning follows a number of incidents in which lawyers filed court documents containing AI-related errors.
In May, Pinsent Masons, one of Britain’s largest law firms, was criticised by a judge after court filings included AI hallucinations.
The firm later apologised and referred itself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Lawyers have also been warned against uploading confidential or privileged client documents into AI systems that do not provide adequate privacy protection.
The Bar Standards Board previously cautioned that barristers could face serious punishment for feeding privileged material into publicly accessible AI tools.
The guidance comes as AI becomes increasingly visible in legal practice.
Last month, Garfield AI, a fully automated AI law firm, won a court case in what was described as a first in British legal history.
The chatbot represented an HR professional seeking £7,000 from a former employer.
The UKJT’s position signals a shift in the legal profession’s approach to AI.
Lawyers are no longer being warned only about the dangers of using the technology badly, but also about the risks of ignoring it entirely where it could reasonably improve their work.
