The notice entitled ‘misuse of AI’ addresses two specific concerns; the use of AI in court and court documents leading to false or incorrect information including fictitious cases and improper citations, so called ‘hallucinations’, and solicitors not fully considering or appropriately mitigating risks to client confidentiality when using AI systems, particularly in relation to clients’ personal data or other confidential information.

The issue of hallucinations has been reported to the SRA by senior members of the judiciary and was in issue in the case of R (on the application of Ayinde) v Haringey LBC which highlighted that AI-generated case citations that turned out to be false were submitted to court, drawing public attention to the risks of using unverified AI outputs in submissions.

The issue of confidential client information being entered into public AI tools was raised in the case of UK v Secretary of State for the Home Department where the Upper Tribunal commented on the potential for the use of public AI tools to breach confidentiality and legal professional privilege.

Both, the warning noted, have the potential to damage public confidence in the solicitor’s profession.

SRA executive director of strategy and policy, Aileen Armstrong said: “AI is already benefiting consumers and legal professionals, and we are increasingly seeing firms use it in innovative ways to improve services and efficiency. However, the use of AI does not change the professional standards expected of solicitors and law firms.

“Firms and solicitors must have appropriate oversight and controls in place to make sure consumers are receiving high-quality legal services and that our standards are met. Individuals remain responsible for the work they produce and the advice they provide, regardless of whether AI is used, or not.”

Dr. Ilia Kolochenko, founder of global cybersecurity company ImmuniWeb, and a lawyer practising in cybersecurity and data protection, commented: “The problem of the careless and negligent use of AI by legal professionals creates increasingly severe and long-lasting harm to their clients in England but also in many other countries. Almost every day, I personally witness excellent but technically unsavvy lawyers who feed highly confidential documents and regulated data not only to ChatGPT or Claude but to their Chinese rivals without any precautions and without informing their clients. In most jurisdictions, such conduct may lead to a civil lawsuit and disciplinary action against the lawyer.

“The unfolding AI debacle in legal practice stems from three interrelated root causes. First, aspiring solicitors, barristers and other legal professionals do not learn how to securely use AI in law school, as most law programs simply have no such courses. Second, the regulatory landscape – especially in the EU and US – has become increasingly complex and even unmanageable, creating an understandable temptation to use several AI chatbots to analyze a client’s problem. Third, banal human laziness and greed, which all human beings are prone to, subconsciously push our brain to look for the easiest way to solve a problem, oftentimes being an AI tool, solution or chatbot.

“In response to the AI disaster, we will probably soon have updated rules of professional conduct, civil and criminal procedure, as well as court rules. The new rules will likely impose, among other things, mandatory disclosure of the use of AI and impose full liability on lawyers for any blunders made by AI. Likewise, clients will need to give their prior consent when AI is used by a law firm, while the billing method must be adequately adjusted. Finally, it is not impossible that courts will require confirmation that all data protection and privacy rules have been respected by law firms, while a violation may cost a lawyer his or her license to practice.”

This warning to English solicitors comes as the Irish courts have moved towards a verification and disclosure requirement for any materials before the court generated using AI. Practice Direction HC142 on the Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Documents was issued by President of the High Court, David Barniville at the beginning of the month and takes effect from 1st September. This will require all persons before the court to independently verify any materials generated using AI and to disclose, when directed, whether generative AI tools were used in connection with the preparation of a court document.