Lawyers warned they carry the can for juniors using AI

Lawyers have been cautioned that they are responsible for monitoring the use of artificial intelligence (AI) within their law firms, especially when junior staff are operating the technology. The Law Society, a body representing solicitors in England and Wales, released new guidance on Wednesday outlining the proper utilization of AI in legal work. This implies that lawyers cannot shift blame for any errors made by AI or their junior counterparts.

The guidance emphasizes that the professional duties and obligations of lawyers remain intact, whether they utilize AI or other technologies, just as they would when working independently. Kerry Westland, Vice-Chair of the City of London Law Society's AI Committee, emphasized that while AI holds substantial potential to aid lawyers at all levels, it does not undermine firms' existing obligations regarding competence, supervision, and accountability.

Westland noted that firms must ensure junior lawyers receive adequate training in utilizing AI critically and safely, while still fostering essential legal judgment and practical skills gained through supervised experience.

The Law Society further underscored that AI is not a replacement for junior lawyers and those responsible for their colleagues should ensure the technology does not supplant opportunities for learning, such as identifying errors, omissions, and unsupported propositions. Solicitors and firms are advised to carefully select AI tools and verify that legal work adheres to professional standards.

Overreliance on AI systems could result in a significant deficit of future legal skills and knowledge, according to Brett Dixon, president of the Law Society.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) echoed a similar warning in August, stating that lawyers supervising junior colleagues may also be found to have breached regulatory requirements and professional duties if false citations are submitted to the court without proper review and supervision. Lawyers and firms in London and across the UK are under close scrutiny by courts and legal regulators for any mistakes made in AI-assisted legal work.

The high-profile case of Pinsent Masons, a top City firm, which was rebuked by a High Court judge in May for submitting a misleading letter containing false legal information, serves as a reminder of the potential consequences. Additionally, immigration lawyer Abhisek Kumar, who was struck off the UK bar after using AI-generated evidence in his own defense, marked the first solicitor to face such consequences in the UK.

The Upper Tribunal issued a warning earlier this year regarding the severe risks associated with employing AI in court documents, including legal professional privilege. The lawyers involved either utilized AI themselves or instructed junior staff to do so, resulting in an immigration judicial review application with inaccurate case law citations.

The Tribunal highlighted that supervisors who fail to ensure their junior fee-earner's work is free from false cases or citations may bear more responsibility than the lawyer who fails to verify their own work for such errors.