ChatGPT: Do not put confidential client info into public AI models
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has “a number of ongoing investigations” into the possible misuse of AI after receiving 42 reports in the past year.
The figure came alongside a warning notice that said the regulator was particularly concerned by AI-generated ‘hallucinations’ in research, advice and submissions to the court and the use of confidential client information by AI tools that lacked safeguards.
It stressed that use of AI “does not diminish or transfer your professional responsibilities” and solicitors remained “accountable for all work and advice delivered to clients, whether or not AI has been used”.
Senior members of the judiciary had reported possible rule breaches resulting from hallucinations, the SRA reported, while there had been “several instances of solicitors self-reporting where they have relied on AI tools that have generated inaccurate or misleading content”.
The other concern was that solicitors were not “fully considering and appropriately mitigating” risks to client confidentiality when using AI systems, particularly relating to clients’ personal data or other confidential information.
“Both paid for and free-to-use AI tools may not provide the contractual and technical safeguards needed to maintain client confidentiality.”
Entering confidential client information into public AI tools risked potential breaches of confidentiality and wider data protection requirements. Last year, the Upper Tribunal referred a solicitor to the SRA for putting client documents into ChatGPT.
The guidance said: “It is incumbent on all managers and employees of SRA-regulated firms to understand their obligations in this regard given the irreparable consequences of sharing clients’ confidential information and the permanent waiver of privilege that can occur as a result.
“For those solicitors working in-house, you should be particularly mindful about the type of AI tools available to you.
“The business may have developed in-house AI tools for their particular field of work but these may not necessarily be specifically designed for legal work. Particular care must be taken when utilising AI in an in-house context.”
AI could be a valuable tool, but it presented risks which “must be understood and managed”.
The SRA added: “Appropriate human oversight, informed professional judgement and a proportionate, risk-based approach are essential to ensure compliance with your regulatory and legal obligations.”
It stressed too that those who supervise junior or non-authorised colleagues could face action if false citations were put before the court without adequate review and/or supervision – supervision failures were at the heart of the now-infamous Pinsent Masons case in May.
Aileen Armstrong, SRA executive director strategy and policy, commented: “AI is already benefiting consumers and legal professionals, and we are increasingly seeing firms use it in innovative ways to improve services and efficiency.
“However, the use of AI does not change the professional standards expected of solicitors and law firms.”
Brett Dixon, vice-president of the Law Society, said: “We welcome the SRA’s warning notice and the clarity the guidance provides around how the use of AI interacts with the provision of legal services by solicitors, particularly in relation to the courts and the protection of client confidentiality.
“Technological innovation in legal processes and service delivery is advancing at speed. As the use of AI evolves rapidly, the SRA will need to continue providing the profession with swift and clear guidance so solicitors can use AI with confidence in line with their duties.”
Leave a Comment