How can solicitors ensure AI compliance under SRA regulations?

How can solicitors ensure AI compliance under SRA regulations?

Solicitors must treat artificial intelligence not as a magic efficiency wand, but as a regulated tool requiring strict governance, human oversight, and inclusion in the Firm-Wide Risk Assessment (FWRA). Under SRA Standards and Regulations, compliance hinges on three non-negotiable pillars: Client Confidentiality (Rule 5.1), Service Competence (Rule 3.2), and Supervision (Rule 3.5).

The SRA has made it clear: you cannot outsource your professional liability to an algorithm. If an AI tool hallucinates a case precedent or leaks client data, the solicitor, not the software vendor, faces the disciplinary tribunal. Compliance requires a documented governance framework that proves you understand the technology you are using, have assessed its risks, and have a "human in the loop" validating every output before it reaches a client or a court.

The SRA’s Stance: It’s All on You

Many firms mistakenly believe that buying an "enterprise" version of a tool like ChatGPT or Copilot automatically ensures compliance. It does not.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) does not regulate AI tools; it regulates solicitors. The moment you use AI to draft a contract, research a precedent, or summarise a client file, that tool becomes part of your legal service delivery. This triggers specific obligations:

• Rule 3.2 (Competence): You must provide a competent service. If an AI tool cites a fictitious case (a "hallucination") and you submit it to court, you have failed in your duty of competence. The "black box" excuse, claiming you didn't know how the AI arrived at that answer, is not a valid defence.
• Rule 5.1 (Confidentiality): You must keep client affairs confidential. Feeding non-anonymised client data into a public model (like the free version of ChatGPT) often grants the vendor a licence to train their model on that data. This is a direct breach of privilege.
• Rule 3.5 (Supervision): You remain accountable for work carried out by others on your behalf. "Others" now includes AI agents. You must supervise AI outputs as rigorously as you would a trainee’s work.

The "Shadow AI" Threat in Law Firms

The biggest compliance risk currently facing firms, from high-street practices in Uckfield to global firms in the City, is Shadow AI.

This occurs when fee earners, frustrated by slow internal systems, use unauthorised public AI tools to speed up their work. A junior solicitor might paste a witness statement into a public chatbot to ask for a summary. In doing so, they have potentially exposed sensitive data to the public domain.

We see this frequently in our audits: firms have a strict "No AI" policy on paper, but their network traffic shows hundreds of connections to AI servers daily. Prohibition does not work; governance does.

Practical Framework for AI Compliance

To move from "risky experimentation" to "compliant deployment," firms must take the following steps:

1. Update Your Firm-Wide Risk Assessment (FWRA)

Your FWRA must explicitly address AI. This includes identifying where AI is used, who has access, and what data categories are permitted. For high-volume claims firms, note that the SRA has previously required mandatory declarations regarding their use of technology, expect this scrutiny to widen.

2. Appoint an AI Officer (or designate the COLP)

Someone must own the risk. This role is responsible for vetting vendors, ensuring Data Processing Agreements (DPAs) are in place, and monitoring the "drift" of AI models over time.

3. Mandate "Human-in-the-Loop" Verification

Draft a policy that strictly prohibits the submission of unverified AI content. Every draft, summary, or research note generated by AI must be reviewed by a qualified human. This review must be documented.

4. Data Hygiene and Anonymisation

Before any data touches an AI model, it should be sanitised. Remove names, dates, financial figures, and addresses. If you cannot anonymise the data, you must use a private, ring-fenced instance of the AI model where data training is contractually disabled.

Conclusion: Competence Over Convenience

AI offers immense potential to reduce the drudgery of legal work, but it demands a higher standard of care, not a lower one. The SRA will not look kindly on firms that prioritise speed over accuracy or confidentiality.

If you are unsure whether your current AI usage breaches SRA guidelines, or if you suspect Shadow AI is already happening in your firm, you need to audit your systems immediately.