SRA AI guidance allows solicitors to use AI while keeping responsibility for their work. Firms need to check accuracy, protect client information and supervise staff. This guide covers the SRA's August 2026 warning alongside its earlier compliance tips, for practices regulated in England and Wales.
The August 2026 warning: what changed?
The SRA published its Misuse of AI warning notice on 17 August 2026. It addresses two concerns: inaccurate material, including invented legal authorities, and risks to confidential client information. It applies existing professional duties to AI use rather than offering an approval scheme for particular products.
A paid subscription alone does not establish that a tool protects confidentiality. Check its contract, settings and technical safeguards before using sensitive information. Supervisors also need to review work prepared by colleagues using AI.
The warning belongs alongside the SRA's compliance tips, updated 9 February 2026. Those earlier tips remain useful, but they are not the newest AI publication covered here.
SRA AI guidance: turning the compliance tips into a firm policy
The February tips recommend leadership, risk assessment, written procedures, training and ongoing monitoring. They also say clients should understand when they are interacting with AI. Firms should consider clients' needs and provide suitable ways to use their services.
A practical starting point is a short approved-tools list. For each tool, write down the permitted tasks, the information staff may enter and who checks the result. Keep the list where staff can find it before starting work, rather than relying on an informal conversation about acceptable use.
For example, your policy could allow a first draft of a routine email while requiring a solicitor to check names, dates, tone and the requested action. Research and court documents warrant a different review: opening the authorities, checking what they actually say and assessing their relevance to the matter. These are examples of a firm's workflow, not a regulator-prescribed template.
Competence, confidentiality and honest communication
The SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors requires competent, timely work and continuing professional competence. It also requires confidentiality and prohibits misleading clients, courts or others. AI does not replace those duties.
A polished answer can still contain an error. Review the reasoning as well as the spelling. Check that a suggested step fits the client's instructions, the jurisdiction and the procedural position. Treat an unfinished AI draft as material to work on, not as the final advice.
The same Code requires effective supervision and makes supervisors accountable for work carried out through colleagues. Tell junior staff which outputs need approval, how to raise uncertainty and where to record the checks. A supervisor needs access to the underlying material, not just reassurance that the tool produced a confident answer.
Client explanations should be clear and accurate. The February tips address direct interaction with AI; the SRA's Risk Outlook on AI also asks firms to consider explaining use on a client's case. Decide how your retainer and communications describe the service in the circumstances. Avoid implying that a regulator has certified your chosen software.
A verification workflow for legal research
The August warning reinforces that lawyers remain responsible for submissions. A source link is a route to verification, not proof that the generated explanation is correct.
Use a consistent review record:
- Open the source for each authority you intend to rely on.
- Read the relevant passage and enough surrounding text to understand it.
- Check the court, jurisdiction, date and current status where relevant.
- Compare the source with the proposition in your draft.
- Record the source checked, the check date and any corrections on the matter.
Suppose an assistant suggests a case in support of a deadline extension. Finding a case with that name is only the first step. You still need to establish that the judgment supports the point, applies to the relevant procedure and has not been displaced by a later development. If the source cannot be located or does not support the argument, correct the draft before relying on it.
Writford provides legal research tools and citation workflows that help solicitors open sources during review. The solicitor stays in control of the final advice and submission. Keep the checking record with the matter so another member of the team can follow the reasoning.
What should you check before sharing client information?
Assess the actual service and data flow, including storage, access, retention and any use of inputs for training. The ICO's international transfer guidance helps firms determine whether transfer rules apply. A hosting location by itself does not answer every data protection question.
| Check | What to ask the supplier |
|---|---|
| Information sent | Which prompts, documents and metadata reach each service? |
| Location and access | Where is each service operated, and who can access the information? |
| Contract | What processing terms and confidentiality commitments apply? |
| Retention | How long are inputs, outputs and logs kept, and how are they removed? |
| Training | Can customer content be used to develop models, and what settings apply? |
| Transfers | If a restricted transfer occurs, what mechanism and assessment support it? |
Use the answers to document a decision about the information you propose to share. An approval for a generic drafting task is not automatically an approval to upload an entire sensitive case file.
For Writford, review the current Privacy Policy, Sub-Processor List and Data Processing Addendum together. Processing locations and terms depend on the service, so this guide does not make an all-services UK/EU-only promise. Writford does not use client content to train AI models. AWS also explains data protection for Amazon Bedrock, including the separation between the service and model providers.
How should firms supervise AI-assisted work?
The SRA Code of Conduct for Firms requires effective governance and systems for supervising client matters. A written policy should be supported by what actually happens on files.
Assign someone to maintain the approved-tools list and someone to review higher-risk work. These may be the same person in a small practice. Make the escalation route clear: a fee-earner who cannot verify an authority should know who to ask before sending the draft.
Review a sample of completed matters periodically. Look for missing checks, confusing client explanations and tasks outside the approved scope. Use what you find to adjust training and procedures. A form with every box ticked is less useful than a short note showing the specific source and issue that were checked.
Billing and a practical starting checklist
The solicitor Code also requires clients to receive understandable information about services and costs. Explain your charging approach accurately. For hourly work, record the time actually spent, including review and correction. For a fixed fee, describe the agreed service clearly. These are practical recording suggestions, not a special AI tariff set by the SRA.
Start with five actions:
- Read the August warning and February compliance tips together.
- List the AI tools already used in the firm and the tasks they support.
- Review supplier terms before approving confidential information for use.
- Set review and supervision steps appropriate to each task.
- Keep the policy, training and matter records up to date as tools change.
Our law firm AI policy guide can help organise that work. Explore Writford's drafting workflow and AI Policy, then try the platform with a task your firm has approved.
Source check: 6 October 2026. Prepared by the Writford Team against the linked primary guidance. This is general information for SRA-regulated practices, not advice on an individual matter.