AI: Environmental impact
Law firms may need client consent to use AI in some situations, while those charging on a time basis “should not bill for the time that a task would have taken had AI not been used”, the Law Society has warned.
It also advised solicitors to consider the environmental impact of using the technology.
A lengthy new practice note published yesterday detailed the many considerations for lawyers when using AI in their practice, stressing the central point that solicitors remained accountable for work produced by AI.
“You should apply an appropriate level of human involvement and safeguards to mitigate risk, for both business of law and practice of law use cases, based on the level of risk posed by the particular AI use,” it said.
Indeed, the practice note said human oversight became “increasingly important” with the use of more autonomous systems, such as AI agents and agentic AI.
Warning of the risk of automation bias – the tendency of individuals to over-rely on, or defer to, the outputs of automated systems – the practice note said “it may be helpful to treat AI outputs with the same level of professional scepticism and independent judgement that would be applied to work produced by a trainee or junior colleague”.
In July, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce said lawyers and other professionals could be sued for negligence for not using AI.
The Law Society said this would depend on whether professional bodies’ regulations and/or guidance, or a court’s assessment, suggests that a comparable reasonable professional should have used AI in that context.
“There is no guidance from us or the SRA to declare instances in which solicitors should use AI, and none is planned at this time. We are not aware of any existing or planned positive duties for regulated solicitors or law firms to use AI in legal services.”
But when using AI “to interact with or provide information or advice to clients”, solicitors should make sure that clients understood where AI systems would be used in relation to their matter.
The practice note said specific disclosure or client consent “may not be required” where AI was used for internal administrative purposes, while the use of AI within a firm’s own secure systems, where data was not used to train an AI system, “is not likely, of itself, to require informed consent”.
It went on: “The appropriate approach in those circumstances is likely to be transparency around use.
“If you use identifiable client data in AI systems, you and your organisation must ensure that the use is lawful and consistent with your legal and regulatory obligations, including SRA regulations and wider data protection and other information-related obligations.
“The use of client information that could breach confidentiality, including to train AI, is likely to require specific client consent. A client care letter or terms of engagement may be an appropriate place to address this.”
Equally, solicitors may want to “encourage clients” to disclose their own use of AI in dealings with the firm.
On charging, the Law Society said that, where fees were time-based, “only time actually and properly spent may be recorded and billed. If AI is used in billing arrangements of this kind, you and your organisation should not bill for the time that a task would have taken had AI not been used”.
Time spent “appropriately operating” the AI system, reviewing and verifying its output, making revisions and “applying professional judgement may be charged where consistent with the client care letter”.
Any separate AI or technology charge should be clearly explained and agreed in advance with the client. “It should not duplicate an amount already recovered through time-based rates or another fee.”
The environmental impact of AI could arise from the data centres that train and run AI systems, the water consumed in cooling systems and the embodied carbon in the underlying hardware.
“They could sit in tension with the net zero commitments your firms, organisation or clients may have made…
“Your organisation and clients should be aware that use of AI may affect an organisation’s emissions, which in turn can carry legal and regulatory implications.”
Law Society president Brett Dixon said: “Solicitors and law firms should choose their AI tools carefully and always check that legal work meets their professional standards. Over-reliance on AI systems may result in a catastrophic gap of future legal skills and knowledge.
“AI has enormous potential, but innovation cannot come at the expense of professional integrity or client protection. Solicitors do not need to be technology experts, but they do need to understand the risks.”
Leave a Comment