TL;DR

The Law Society is calling for urgent Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) guidance on how AI can be used in litigation following the Mazur ruling. The guidance has been updated four times since October, reflecting the fast-moving nature of this legal uncertainty around AI-assisted decision-making in legal proceedings.

Unresolved Questions on AI in Litigation

The Law Society has added a call for urgent regulatory guidance to its Mazur guidance document, which has been updated repeatedly since first publication on 16 October. The core issue: whether AI making key decisions in a case amounts to “conducting litigation”—a reserved legal activity.

The guidance now states: “The legitimacy of the use of AI to make key decisions in a case that would amount to conducting litigation if taken by an individual remains unresolved. This is a novel development that was clearly not within the contemplation of the drafters of the Legal Services Act 2007.”

For solicitors to feel comfortable “exploring what uses of AI in legal services are desirable,” the Law Society argues it is “vital that the regulator gives clear guidance on what is permissible as a matter of urgency.”

Practical Implications

The evolving guidance has already seen significant changes. Initial advice that non-authorised people could sign statements of truth has been removed—now the guidance only permits them to draft witness statements.

The Law Society notes that Garfield, the first regulated AI law firm specialising in debt collection, has expressed no concerns about Mazur as its technology is not conducting litigation. CILEX has been granted permission to appeal the Mazur decision to the Court of Appeal, despite not being party to the original case.

Looking Forward

This regulatory uncertainty has significant implications for UK law firms exploring AI adoption. Until the SRA provides clear guidance, firms must carefully consider whether AI tools making decisions in litigation matters could constitute unauthorised practice. The situation highlights the growing need for regulatory frameworks that keep pace with AI capabilities in professional services.

Source: Legal Futures