header-logo header-logo

05 September 2025 / Robert Taylor
Issue: 8129 / Categories: Features , Profession , Artificial intelligence , Legal services , Technology
printer mail-detail

Small firms, big tech

228900
Access to AI risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms. Robert Taylor sets out the tools they need—& how to find them
  • SME law firms need AI tools that are simple, affordable, cloud-based, and focused on practical contract review.
  • AI should support, not replace, solicitor judgment, with built-in regulatory safeguards.

  • Legal technology has evolved rapidly over the past five years. From contract analytics and document automation to artificial intelligence (AI)-driven decision support tools, these developments have been enthusiastically adopted by large regional, national and international law firms, as well as by alternative legal service providers.

    However, as innovation has accelerated, so too has a growing disparity in access. Many small and high-street firms remain unable to engage with these tools, held back by barriers including cost, system complexity and limited internal technical resource. This technological divide is not merely inconvenient; it risks entrenching long-term disadvantage for firms already operating under economic pressure.

    Without access to affordable and efficient AI tools, smaller firms may find themselves offering slower

    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

    Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

    Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

    Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

    EIP—Rob Barker

    EIP—Rob Barker

    IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

    Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

    Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

    Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

    NEWS
    A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
    Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
    Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
    A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
    A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
    back-to-top-scroll