As the UK government looks to ease regulations to accelerate artificial intelligence adoption, the legal profession is urging caution. The Law Society has pushed back against calls for sweeping regulatory exemptions, arguing that current laws are already capable of supporting AI innovation—if they are applied with greater clarity and confidence.
The debate follows a recent move by the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology (DSIT), which launched a call for evidence on a proposed “AI Growth Lab.” The initiative would act as a cross-sector sandbox, allowing companies to test autonomous technologies under time-limited regulatory exemptions. Ministers say many existing rules were written before autonomous software became mainstream and are often built around the assumption that decisions are made by humans, not machines.
The government believes faster regulatory flexibility could give the UK a competitive edge. Its early estimates suggest AI could add as much as £140 billion to the economy by 2030. Legal services are singled out as a sector where removing what it describes as “unnecessary legal barriers” could unlock billions in additional value over the next decade.
However, the profession itself is not asking for deregulation. In its formal response to the consultation, The Law Society said the current legal framework is fundamentally sound. The real obstacle, it argues, is uncertainty. While around two-thirds of lawyers already use some form of AI, many firms remain hesitant to expand adoption due to unanswered legal and practical questions.
Ian Jeffery, chief executive of The Law Society, said the challenge is not excessive regulation but a lack of clear guidance. He pointed to issues such as cost, data handling, and skills gaps as more significant hurdles than the rules themselves. According to Jeffery, existing regulations already support innovation, but firms need clearer direction on how those rules apply in practice.
Key areas of confusion include liability and data protection. Solicitors are seeking definitive guidance on whether client data must be anonymised before being used in AI systems, as well as standardised expectations around data security and storage. Responsibility becomes even less clear when mistakes occur. If an AI tool produces flawed or harmful legal advice, it is still uncertain whether accountability lies with the individual lawyer, the firm, the software developer, or an insurer.
Supervision requirements are another grey area. Firms want clarity on whether human oversight is required every time AI is used, particularly in sensitive or regulated areas of practice. These concerns are especially pressing for “reserved legal activities” such as court representation, conveyancing, and probate, where professional obligations are tightly defined and breaches carry serious consequences.
While the government has said any AI sandbox would include firm safeguards to protect public safety and fundamental rights, The Law Society remains cautious. It has warned against weakening consumer protections in the name of speed or innovation.
Jeffery stressed that trust in the legal system depends on maintaining strong professional standards. He said current regulation reflects safeguards set by Parliament to protect clients and the public, and that these protections underpin the global reputation of the legal system in England and Wales.
The Law Society has signalled it is open to working with the government on a legal services-focused sandbox, but only if it operates within existing professional and ethical boundaries. Any changes, it insists, should involve legal regulators and be subject to parliamentary oversight.
As AI continues to reshape legal practice, the profession’s message is clear: innovation does not require tearing up the rulebook. What lawyers need most is certainty—clear guidance on how established laws apply in an increasingly automated world—so that progress can move forward without compromising trust or integrity.
