The SRA Warns That Solicitors and Regulated Individuals Who Use AI Remain Accountable for Their Work, Regardless of How It Was Prepared

On August 17, 2026 the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which regulates solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, published a warning notice headed "Misuse of AI." The notice says it "is for solicitors and law firms" and is "designed to help you understand your obligations and how to comply with them," and that the regulator will have regard to it when exercising its regulatory functions. It is relevant, it says, to all the firms and individuals the regulator regulates. Parts of it follow, not the whole.

Two Concerns

The notice says many solicitors and law firms use AI "safely and responsibly," but that the regulator "has identified a number of cases involving the misuse of AI, particularly relating to the provision of inaccurate information and client confidentiality." Its first concern is court and other documents that contain false or incorrect information, citations included, as a result of the misuse of AI. AI tools, it says, can produce "hallucinations," generating "fictitious cases, references or seemingly factual assertions that may appear convincing despite having no basis in fact." Its second concern is that those it regulates are not fully considering and appropriately mitigating risks to client confidentiality when they use AI systems.

The issues it has observed to date, it says, include reports of potential breaches of its Code of Conduct "from senior members of the judiciary," and "several instances of solicitors self-reporting" after relying on AI tools that generated inaccurate or misleading content. They also include instances of confidential client information being entered into public AI tools.

Accountable, However the Work Was Prepared

Under its heading on hallucinations, the notice says that "AI has no separate legal personality; solicitors and regulated individuals who use AI in the course of delivering legal services remain accountable for their work and outputs, regardless of how that work has been prepared." Firms, it adds, must have effective governance structures, systems and controls to manage risks, including those arising from AI.

On the duty to the court, it says a solicitor "should be assured that all submissions of named case law authorities are genuine, relevant, have a verifiable citation, and advance the arguments that are being put forward." It points to a 2025 judgment, [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), which notes, the notice says, that it is "likely to be appropriate for the court to make a reference to the regulator" when a lawyer places false citations before the court. In the notice's own words, that covers false citations "whether because AI has been used without proper checks being made, or otherwise." In that scenario, the notice says, "Reliance on an output of AI would not be a suitable defence." False material put before a court "could also be considered contempt of court."

"Those who supervise junior or non-authorised colleagues may also be found to have breached regulatory requirements and professional duties if false citations are put before the court without adequate review and/or supervision," the notice says. Firms must keep effective systems for supervising client matters, it says, and a firm's compliance officer for legal practice must take all reasonable steps to ensure compliance, including on supervision.

The notice puts the risk where the signature is. The person who used the tool cannot point to it, and on the notice's terms a supervisor may answer too when false citations reach a court without adequate review.

Its summary says that "The use of AI does not diminish or transfer your professional responsibilities." And: "If you fail to have proper regard to this warning notice, you are at risk of disciplinary action."

Client Confidentiality

On confidentiality, the notice cites a 2026 decision of the Upper Tribunal, which observed that putting client letters and decision letters from the Home Office into an open source AI tool "is to place this information on the internet in the public domain." Using AI tools that way, the notice says, "will likely breach client confidentiality," and legal professional privilege "may be permanently waived and unable to be recovered."

"Both free to use and paid for AI systems may pose risks to client confidentiality," depending on the provider's terms, settings and technical architecture. Client information, it says, "should only be entered into AI systems where appropriate contractual, technical and organisational safeguards are in place to protect confidentiality."

A false citation can be found by checking it. Client information already entered into a public tool may leave no sign in the finished work at all.