Generative AI – the essentials

Glossary of terms

Similar to many evolving technologies, there is often no universally agreed definition of terms such as 'artificial intelligence'.

This glossary provides context for how relevant terms have been defined in this guide.

Artificial intelligence

The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that usually require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition and decision-making.

The data used to train an AI system is referred to as the input data, and the results produced by the system as the output.

Generative artificial intelligence

Generative AI is a subcategory of AI that uses deep learning algorithms to generate novel outputs based on large quantities of existing or synthetic (artificially created) input data.

These outputs can be multimodal such as text, images, audio or video.

Chatbot

A digital tool or software application designed to simulate conversation with users, primarily via text or synthesised speech.

While some chatbots operate based on predefined responses, advanced versions use AI (including generative AI techniques) to provide more dynamic and contextually relevant interactions, reducing the need for immediate human intervention.

Large language model

A large language model (LLM) is an AI system trained on an exceptionally large amount of data. There is no consensus on what constitutes 'large'.

LLMs specifically work with language and are built on a type of machine learning called 'deep learning' to understand how characters, words and sentences function together.

An LLM is one underlying technology that enables generative AI.

The term ‘foundation model’ is often used synonymously with LLM but could refer to systems with broader functions as developed in the future.

Lawtech

Technologies that aim to support, supplement or replace traditional methods for delivering legal services or that improve the way the justice system operates.

Machine learning

A subset of AI that enables computer algorithms to evolve and refine their performance by processing and learning from data over time.

Who should read this?

All solicitors and members of their staff who use, or are looking to use, generative AI tools as part of their practice.

This guidance may be particularly useful for SMEs and in-house solicitors seeking to understand the opportunities and risk landscape of generative AI tools.

AI and generative AI vendors may find this guidance helpful for understanding the types of considerations and risks solicitors need to be aware of when using these tools as part of their practice.

What is the issue?

While the technology that underpins generative AI is not new, the increased accessibility, affordability and sophistication of these tools have allowed for widespread professional and public adoption.

Like all technologies, AI and generative AI have the potential to enable increased efficiency and cost savings where processes can be automated and streamlined, with minimal human intervention.

Such opportunities also come with both new and longstanding risks such as:

• intellectual property risks: potential infringements of copyright, trade marks, patents and related rights, and misuse or disclosure of confidential information
• data protection and privacy risks: concerns related to the unauthorised access, sharing or misuses of personal and sensitive data
• cyber security risks: vulnerabilities to hacking, data breaches, corruption of data sources and other malicious cyber activities
• training data concerns: the use or misuse of data to train generative AI models, which could result in biases or inappropriate outputs
• output integrity: the potential for generative AI to produce misleading, inaccurate or false outputs that can be misconstrued or misapplied
• ethical and bias concerns: the possibility of AI models reflecting or amplifying societal biases present in their training data, leading to unfair or discriminatory results. There may also be environment, social and governance (ESG) considerations
• human resources and reputation risks: if the use of generative AI may result in negative consequences for clients, there may be reputational and brand damage

In 2023, the UK government published a white paper, a pro-innovation approach to AI regulation, which proposes taking a risk-based and principles-based approach to regulating AI.

We responded to the consultation on the white paper, calling for a balanced approach to AI regulation.

This balanced approach would enable the profession to capitalise on the benefits of deploying AI technologies while establishing a clear delineation of the human role and accountability within the AI lifecycle.

Our response also stressed the importance of ensuring continuing respect for the rule of law.

In February 2024, the UK government published its response to the AI white paper consultation.

The response prioritises taking a pro-innovation, light touch and cross-sectoral approach to regulation, giving regulators an opportunity to interpret, apply and enforce existing rules.

While the government’s response does not reference the legal sector specifically, the Legal Services Board published its AI strategic plan in April 2024 which aims to:

• align itself with government’s approach to AI, focusing on harnessing the benefits of technology and innovation to widen access to justice and reduce unmet legal need
• adopt an outcomes-based, technology-neutral, non-prescriptive approach to regulating technology and innovation through statutory guidance
• consider wider plans including horizon scanning, reviewing education and training guidance, understanding legal regulator capacity for AI and facilitating information sharing

The AI and digital regulation landscape has shifted since the initial publication of the white paper, with the change in the UK government and the exponential emergence of generative AI.

In June 2024, the EU made Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, the ‘EU AI Act’, which came into force in stages from 1 August 2024.

This has implications for those doing business in the EU, particularly for firms with international clients.

There are no current plans to introduce legislation on AI in the UK. The UK government is currently adopting a principles-based and context-specific approach to regulation.

In January 2025, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology commissioned and published an independent AI opportunities action plan.

This outlines recommendations on how the government can capture the opportunities of AI to enhance growth and productivity and create tangible benefits for UK citizens.

The government responded to this plan, integrating its recommendations into the industrial strategy.

Given the legal uncertainty about whether and how AI and generative AI is expected to be regulated by the government in the future, it is important to recognise the risks and available protections under existing regulations.

Checklist when considering generative AI use

In summary, the following points should be considered when considering generative AI use:

• define the purpose and use cases of the generative AI tool
• outline the desired outcome of using the generative AI tool
• follow professional obligations under the SRA Code of Conduct, SRA Standards and Regulations and SRA Principles
• follow any relevant guidance, including from regulators and the court
• adhere to wider policies related to IT, AI, confidentiality and data governance
• regularly review the generative AI vendor’s data management, security and standards
• establish rights over generative AI prompts, training data and outputs
• establish whether the generative AI tool is a closed system within your firm’s boundaries or also operates as a training model for third parties
• discuss expectations and clearly communicate the use of generative AI tools for the delivery of legal services between you and the client
• consider what input data you are likely to use and whether it is appropriate to put it into the generative AI tool
• identify and manage the risks and impact on legal doctrines, including those related to confidentiality, intellectual property, data protection, cyber security, equality and ethics
• establish the liability and insurance coverage related to generative AI use and the use of outputs in your practice
• document inputs, outputs and any errors of the generative AI tool if this is not automatically collected and stored
• review generative AI outputs for accuracy and factual correctness, including mitigation of biases and fact-checking

For further support on how to decide on the right technology for your law firm or legal practice, see our buying new technology guide.

Generative AI in the legal profession

Generative AI can be used in a variety of ways. These include:

• analysing contracts
• drafting or summarising documentation
• facilitating e-discovery
• powering client chatbots
• enhancing internal knowledge databases
• predicting case outcomes
• creating images

As generative AI is an emerging market, how and to what extent these technologies are used within the legal profession as well as what tools become available is likely to rapidly change.

A survey of over 1,000 UK lawyers and legal professionals conducted by LexisNexis found that:

• the vast majority (95%) of respondents believe generative AI will have a noticeable impact on the law
• 38% believe it will be significant
• 11% believe it will be transformative

Two-thirds (67%) of survey participants said they feel mixed about the impact of generative AI on the practice of law, admitting that they can see both the positives and the drawbacks.

Nevertheless, the use of AI among lawyers to produce court papers is increasing. This is also true of the judiciary.

In December 2023, the senior judiciary issued guidance on the use of AI-generated material by judges in the preparation of judgments (updated March 2025).

In December 2023, a litigant-in-person was found to have used a generative AI tool to unknowingly generate fictitious case citations in a tax tribunal.

The production of outputs that are presented as accurate but are illogical, nonsensical, factually incorrect or do not reflect the training data is often called ‘hallucination’.

As noted above, in the same way that generative AI does not understand its outputs, generative AI is not sentient.

The technology lacks the capability to understand its own output and meaning in the same way that humans do.

Hallucinations therefore do not refer to generative AI’s capacity for human-like imagination or perception.

Instead, hallucinations are outputs that have been generated based on data that was used to train the AI model, without reflecting critical thinking or accuracy.

Solicitors’ professional obligations when using generative AI

In May 2025, the High Court judgment in Ayinde v London Borough of Hackney and Hamad Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank raised questions around the need for the legal profession to address the misuse of generative AI in legal proceedings.

The president of the King’s Bench Division highlighted the dangers of AI-generated inaccuracies, including:

• the citation of non-existent cases, and
• the importance of lawyers complying with their duties to the court

A solicitor’s professional duties and obligations, in particular their duties to the court and to the client, apply to work carried out by the solicitor.

This is regardless of whether AI or other technologies were used to assist with that work.

They apply whether AI was used by the solicitor personally or by anyone under that solicitor’s supervision.

As a solicitor, your duty to the court means that you must take positive steps to make sure that any information or documents that you submit to the court are accurate and from genuine and verifiable sources.

All materials presented to the court, including court forms, should be read and checked for accuracy.

For pleadings or other documents, you must review final versions to make sure that all citations to reference material (such as law reports or quotations from books, journals or articles) are verified. AI-generated data should be reviewed against reliable and authoritative sources. You should also consider whether those sources have been mined without consent.

For witness statements and experts’ reports, you bear the professional responsibility for their factual accuracy.

Misuse of any tool, leading to inaccurate information being presented, will breach the standards of professionalism required by the SRA Code of Conduct.

Even if you are not being deliberately dishonest, misleading a client, the court or anyone else is a breach of paragraph 1.4 of the SRA Code of Conduct.

An obligation to use AI and all tools and materials used for research appropriately also applies to the Code of Conduct requirements to:

• maintain competence, professional knowledge and skills (paragraph 3.2 and 3.4)
• effectively supervise work undertaken for the client (paragraph 3.5 (b))

The court has made it clear that any breach of professional standards resulting from the misuse of AI to carry out legal research or draft court documents is extremely serious.

You should expect the court to consider the entire range of sanctions available to it in exercising both its inherent jurisdiction over solicitors as officers of the court and the court’s 'Hamid' jurisdiction.

The court’s choice of sanction will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. This can range from:

• public censure
• public admonishment
• striking out of proceedings
• referral to the relevant regulator
• contempt of court or referral to the police

Although public admonishment is a potential sanction, the court considers the misuse of AI in this context so serious that admonishment alone will rarely be sufficient.

The expectation is that the court will impose severe sanctions, other than in exceptional circumstances.

Fundamentally, the improper use of AI or any other tools used in preparing court papers directly conflicts with the SRA Principles, which require solicitors to:

• act in a way that upholds the rule of law and the proper administration of justice
• uphold public trust and confidence in the legal profession
• act with honesty, independence and integrity

More recently, in April 2026, the judge in Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar & Pitstop (PDF) referred two solicitors to the SRA after they were found to have relied upon AI for the preparation of court documents which then contained inaccurate citations to cases and cited cases in support of submissions which they did not in fact support or were on an unrelated subject. The judgment refers to Ayinde as noted above.

In the judgment, the judge clearly laid out the reasoning behind their decision, including references to:

• citing cases incorrectly or that do not exist
• referring to cases in inconsistent ways through their documents
• signing off documents in ways that are not in keeping with usual practice
• phrases in documents that appear to be part of generative AI outputs, indicating the use of those tools without adequate checks of the final documents

When considering whether the solicitors’ actions constitute contempt of court, the judge outlined that it is unlikely there would be sufficient evidence to ground a suggestion that there was a deliberate attempt to place misleading material before the court.

Despite this, the judge made clear that admonishment alone was insufficient given the severity of the matter. He also pointed out that the conduct was improper and inexcusable on the part of a professionally qualified lawyer. 

The judge directed that the two solicitors must be referred to the SRA for their conduct to be investigated, who will determine whether further action should be taken.

Current regulatory landscape

If you use generative AI tools as part of legal service provision, it is important that you maintain effective, professional quality control over their output and use.

You should:

• carefully factcheck its products and authenticate the outputs
• carry out due diligence (including supplier due diligence) on the AI tools you use and consider the often-limited warranties offered by providers and contained in the terms of use
• make sure that appropriate staff protocols and guidance are provided around employees’ use of such tools if they are permitted

Where applicable to procurement, you should carefully negotiate key contractual terms of warranties, indemnities and limitations on liability with vendors. This includes any relevant source code agreements.

When assessing the market, it may be useful to examine vendor’s attitudes to research and development of their tool to make sure future innovation is in line with your expectation and objectives.

Consider whether you need or will have long-term support from a vendor, as well as an exit plan should a generative AI tool be adopted but the vendor exits the market.

It is important that you comply with any existing internal policies throughout the process of generative AI planning, from considering the potential use of the tool, to possible procurement, risk management and decommissioning where relevant.

At present, there are no statutory obligations on generative AI technology companies to audit their outputs to ensure they are factually accurate.

Consequently, the use of these tools by legal professionals could result in the provision of incorrect or incomplete advice or information to clients.

Additional risk may also occur where automated decisions are made using generative AI outputs.

As there is currently no AI- or generative AI-specific regulation in the UK, it is important you understand the capacities and limitations of the generative AI tool you plan to use.

Although you do not have to have full knowledge of the inner workings of a tool, consider the claims the provider is making about it and assess the evidence and benchmarks they use to demonstrate the tool’s capabilities.

Currently, the SRA does not have specific guidance on generative AI related to use or disclosure of use for client care.

It is advisable that you and your clients decide on whether and how generative AI tools might be used in the provision of your legal advice and support.

Clear communication on whether such tools are used prevents misunderstandings as to how information is produced and how decisions are made.

If a generative AI tool is used and the tool does not provide a history of use, it is advisable that you document all inputs, outputs and system errors to make sure the use of the tool can be monitored as appropriate.

If you have decided to use or procure a generative AI tool, make sure you regularly assess the tool’s relevance and value addition to your practice.

When assessing the tool, it is important that a holistic view is taken across the tool’s lifecycle.

All reviews should be outcome- and objective-led, with specific measurements taken to assess the tool’s performance.

If your initial or updated requirements are no longer met, consider how you can transition away and extricate your organisation from the tool if necessary, including data removal and deletion within the generative AI system, as well as source code transfer if relevant.

While generative AI introduces new risks, existing risk management processes such as cyber security and insurance may already be in place to mitigate risk.

The issues below are specific to generative AI technologies but may overlap with your wider risk management processes.

There is not currently any guidance from the SRA or HMCTS on the use of AI in court documents, although the Bar Standards Board has published guidance for barristers on use of AI, as have the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.

In February 2026, the Civil Justice Council (CJC) published a consultation paper on the use of AI in court documents. This explored whether there is a need for new civil procedure rules to provide for greater transparency of AI use.

At the time of writing, the CJC had not made any recommendations. There is a possibility that new rules on transparency will be introduced in future.

The Law Society submitted a response to the CJC’s consultation and called for a range of measures, including:

• guidance from the SRA and HMCTS
• a widescale Ministry of Justice review of the use of AI in the justice system
• new rules to provide for greater transparency

This is a developing area and demonstrates the importance of closely tracking the emergence of new rules, regulation and guidance. When using AI, special care should be taken to comply with the professional obligation to ensure information presented the court is accurate and appropriate.

Intellectual property

Ownership of input and output data

One key concern when using generative AI tools is determining the ownership of both the input and output data.

In addition to data over which you have control and to which you have rights, data scraping is often performed in the training of generative AI tools and can cause concerns.

Data scraping is the process of extracting data from various sources, such as databases, files or websites (web scraping), often using automated tools.

While this is a common technique for data gathering and is not exclusive to AI or generative AI, its use in training generative AI tools can lead to intellectual property challenges.

There is also potential for copyright infringement if input data containing copyright works results in recognisable outputs.

To mitigate potential data scraping infringements, you may wish to speak to your web service provider to rate limit website requests and disallow generative AI bots from scraping your website by limiting its accessibility from scraping tools through editing the robots.txt file where possible.

Companies such as Cloudflare also provide tools for blocking AI bots to limit scraping.

The World Intellectual Property Organization published a generative AI factsheet on how the protection of intellectual property should be navigated.

Ownership clauses in terms of services

Generative AI tool agreements may contain provisions allowing the AI vendor to reuse input data to refine its system.

Additionally, some agreements note that the AI provider and vendor retains ownership of the output data.

It is imperative that such clauses do not conflict with professional standards concerning the ownership and control of legal advice or compromise data confidentiality.

Procurement considerations

If considering the procurement of an AI tool, clarity on who will own the intellectual property rights over input and output data is essential.

It is important to review the terms of service and privacy policy of each tool you use to check the usage rights, ownership of outputs and any disclaimers. 

Data protection and privacy

You should be cautious that generative AI companies may be able to see your input and output data.

As many generative AI companies are located outside of the UK, data may be transferred outside UK borders and international data processing may occur.

Personal data may be knowingly or unknowingly included in the datasets that are used to train generative AI systems.

This could raise data protection concerns both regarding what personal data was used, as well as whether such personal data may be present in the outputs.

As generative AI tools are trained using large volumes of data, it may be possible that confidential or sensitive information is exposed.

Generally, it is advisable that you do not feed confidential information into generative AI tools, especially if you lack direct control and oversight over the tool’s development and deployment.

If you are using a free, online generative AI service where you have no operational relationship with the vendor other than use, do not put any confidential data into the tool.

If you are procuring or working with a vendor to develop a personalised generative AI product for internal use contained solely within your firm’s legal environment, you may wish to consider if and how you want to put confidential data into the tool, subject to the terms of use.

Caution should also be taken when using tools and features that are built on top of generative AI platforms.

Metadata and information such as document authorship, websites accessed, file names and downloads might be shared with the main technology providers, not only with the specific software and vendor you are using.

The Information Commissioner’s Office had a consultation series, the first of which we responded to, to assess how aspects of data protection law should apply to the development and use of generative AI models.

We also responded to the government's consultation on copyright and AI.

You can find more information on data protection in our data protection guide for law firms.

Cyber security

Using generative AI tools can introduce cyber security risks, including the potential for malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities.

For example, one such method is ‘prompt injections’, where certain commands are subtly inserted into the tool to manipulate or bypass tool restrictions on data outputs to perform previously restricted activities.

Other cyber security risks include data source corruption that may compromise the generative AI outputs.

Generative AI tools can also be weaponised by adversaries to produce more sophisticated phishing and cyber security attacks in greater volume.

The National Cyber Security Centre has written about the cyber security issues related to generative AI.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales (ICAEW) has produced its own generative AI guidance. 

Ethical considerations

There are ethical considerations on the use of generative AI.

In 2021, we published research on lawtech principles and ethics following our research into how some of the largest firms in the UK assessed solutions and navigated ethical considerations around lawtech.

Within an overarching client care principle, the five main principles identified to inform lawtech design, development and deployment are:

1. compliance
2. lawfulness
3. capability
4. transparency
5. accountability

These ethical principles around lawtech are relevant to generative AI.

More recently, the UK government’s principles outlined in its AI white paper may be useful when thinking about wider ethical considerations regarding the use of generative AI tools. These principles are:

1. safety, security, and robustness
2. appropriate transparency and explainability
3. fairness
4. accountability and governance
5. contestability and redress

Public sector and public bodies need to consider generative AI in context of the Public Sector Equalities Duty (PSED), which applies to any AI systems that public bodies are already using or that others may be developing or using on their behalf.

Even for organisations in the private sector, consideration of PSED requirements may help support ethical and responsible practices when using generative AI tools.

The UK Government Digital Service and the Office for Artificial Intelligence have also published joint guidance on how to build and use AI in the public sector.

More broadly on the creation of generative AI systems, it is useful to consider what labour was used and what values were considered in the design, development and deployment process.

When generative AI tools are used, it would be advisable to ask the generative AI vendors for more information about:

• what datasets they used
• how such datasets were acquired and fed into their systems for training
• who is tasked with data labelling and training the generative AI system

As the layers of data and generative AI platforms increase, computational and bureaucratic systems become increasingly complex.

This means that, when harm does occur, determining what happened, why and who is responsible becomes more challenging, with further complication as the technology continues to evolve.

Finally, access to justice considerations should be taken into account when deciding on the design, development and deployment of generative AI tools.

This includes thinking critically about potential biases, discriminatory or exclusionary practices and outcomes that may manifest from generative AI and AI systems in general.

Our 21st century justice project report explores the problems facing justice, including challenges related to rapid digitalisation and the rise of AI.

Specifically, we examined how legal services consumers should be protected from the potential risks related to the use of generative AI tools and case predictive analytics, while maximising the use of technology to promote access to justice.