header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 March 2026 / Ruth Pratt
Issue: 8155 / Categories: Features , Artificial intelligence , Dispute resolution
printer mail-detail

Lawyers using AI—where are we at?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
245638
Helpful assistant or laden with unknown traps? Ruth Pratt considers recent thoughts on AI for lawyers
  • Considers the main points to take away from the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce draft Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms and the Civil Justice Council’s interim report and consultation on the Use of AI for Preparing Court Documents.

Both the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT) and the Civil Justice Council (CJC) have recently published consultations on the use of artificial intelligence (AI). What should we as lawyers make of the ideas discussed? Do either of these consultations give us more certainty or clarity on our use of AI?

UKJT draft legal statement

This consultation was published in January by the UKJT, which is part of LawtechUK, an initiative backed by the Ministry of Justice. The draft Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms seeks to address the tricky conundrum of AI and liability. It considers the questions of, in what circumstances, and on what legal bases, will English common law impose liability

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll