Lawyers have been warned they remain accountable for supervising AI use within their law firm, particularly when junior employees are operating the technology.

The Law Society, an independent body that represents solicitors in England and Wales, issued new guidance on Wednesday setting out the appropriate use of AI in legal work, meaning lawyers cannot blame the technology – or junior employees – for any mistakes it makes.

The guidance states that lawyers’ “professional duties and obligations apply in the same way whether AI or other technologies were used” by the solicitor themselves “or by anyone under that solicitor’s supervision to assist with that work.”

Vice-Chair of the City of London Law Society’s AI Committee Kerry Westland, told that while AI “has significant potential to support lawyers at every level” it “does not displace firms’ existing duties of competence, supervision and accountability.”

“Firms will need to ensure that junior lawyers are trained to use AI critically and safely, while continuing to develop the legal judgement and practical skills that come from properly supervised experience. The Committee will consider the guidance as part of its ongoing work on the impact of AI across CLLS member firms,” Westland said.

The Law Society added that AI is “no substitute for junior lawyers” and those which are responsible for junior colleagues must make sure the tech does not “replace opportunities”, including how to “identify errors, omissions and unsupported propositions.”

“Solicitors and law firms should choose their AI tools carefully and always check that legal work meets their professional standards. Over-reliance on AI systems may result in a catastrophic gap of future legal skills and knowledge,” Brett Dixon, president of the Law Society, said.

The legal watchdog, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), issued a similar warning in August noting that lawyers who supervise junior colleagues “may also be found to have breached regulatory requirements and professional duties if false citations are put before the court without adequate review and/or supervision.”

Legal sectors’ AI use under the microscope

This comes as lawyers and law firms across London and the rest of the UK are being closely watched by the courts and legal regulators and reprimanded for any mistakes made in AI-assisted legal work.

Top City firm Pinsent Masons was slammed by a High Court judge in May for sending misleading letters to the court containing false legal information. The firm admitted that an AI tool had been used by the junior solicitor to research the legal issue, and to later draft the second letter.

In September, an immigration lawyer, Abhisek Kumar, who was referred to a Tribunal after a criminal conviction became the first solicitor in the UK to be struck off after using AI-generated evidence as part of his own defence.

The Upper Tribunal issued a warning earlier this year in an immigration case on the serious risks of using AI in court documents, including in legal professional privilege.

The lawyers had either used AI themselves or instructed their junior staff to use it to draft an immigration judicial review application which contained inaccurate citations of case law.

The Tribunal reminded lawyers that “a supervisor who fails to ensure that the work of a more junior fee-earner does not contain false cases or citations is likely to be more culpable than a lawyer who fails to ensure that his own work is free from such ‘hallucinations’.”