The rapid development of artificial intelligence has prompted the government to consider whether existing regulation is fit for purpose. While ministers are exploring ways to accelerate adoption through regulatory flexibility, the legal profession is urging a more cautious approach, centred on clarity rather than deregulation.
As ministers seek to relax rules to encourage faster adoption of artificial intelligence, The Law Society maintains that the focus should be on clarifying how existing laws apply, rather than creating new exemptions.
The Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT) has launched a call for evidence on a proposed ‘AI Growth Lab’. The scheme would operate as a cross-economy sandbox, intended to accelerate the use of autonomous technologies by allowing firms to operate under “time-limited regulatory exemptions”. The government argues that much existing regulation predates autonomous software and is based on the assumption that decisions are taken by humans rather than machines.
Ministers believe that moving more quickly than international competitors could give the UK a significant economic advantage, potentially increasing national output by £140 billion by 2030. Initial government analysis highlights legal services as a sector in which removing “unnecessary legal barriers” could generate billions of pounds in additional value over the next decade.
However, the legal profession is not calling for regulatory exemptions. In its formal response, The Law Society stated that the current regulatory framework is sufficiently robust. It argues that the main issue is not the substance of the rules, but uncertainty about how they should be interpreted and applied. Although around two-thirds of lawyers already use AI tools, a lack of clarity continues to limit wider adoption.
Ian Jeffery, CEO of The Law Society, said: “AI innovation is vital for the legal sector and already has great momentum. The existing legal regulatory framework supports progress. The main challenges don’t stem from regulatory burdens, but rather from uncertainty, cost, data and skills associated with AI adoption.”
Instead of broad regulatory reform, the profession is seeking clearer guidance. Law firms currently face uncertainty around liability and data protection. There is no definitive position on whether client data must be anonymised before being used in AI systems, and there is a lack of standardised expectations for data security and storage.
Uncertainty also arises when things go wrong. If an AI system produces incorrect or harmful legal advice, it is unclear who is ultimately responsible, whether that is the individual solicitor, the firm, the technology provider or the insurer. There is also a lack of clarity around supervision, including whether a human lawyer must oversee every use of AI.
These issues are particularly important in relation to “reserved legal activities”, such as advocacy, conveyancing and probate, where practitioners need assurance that the use of automated tools does not place them in breach of their professional obligations.
AI laws must retain safeguards
The government has said that the proposed sandbox would include “red lines” to protect safety and fundamental rights. Nevertheless, The Law Society has expressed concern about any approach that could weaken consumer protections in pursuit of speed.
“Technological progress in the legal sector should not expose clients or consumers to unregulated risks,” Jeffery stated. “Current regulation of the profession reflects the safeguards that Parliament deemed vital to protect clients and the public. It ensures trust in the English and Welsh legal system worldwide.”
The organisation has indicated that it would be open to participating in a legal services sandbox, provided that it reinforces, rather than circumvents, professional standards. Its stated priority is the continued integrity of the justice system as AI becomes more widely used.
“The Law Society strongly supports innovation provided it remains aligned with professional integrity and operates in a solid regulatory environment,” Jeffery explained. “The government must work with legal regulators and bodies to ensure adherence to the sector’s professional standards. Any legal regulatory changes must include parliamentary oversight.”
The Law Society’s position is that progress does not depend on weakening safeguards, but on providing clear guidance on how current rules apply in practice. As AI use grows within legal services, maintaining professional standards and public trust remains a central concern, and any regulatory change will need to balance innovation with accountability and oversight.
