Blog
What a UK law firm wants to know before, during and after bringing an assistant into its work. Short, practical and written to be checked, like everything else here.
· 4 min read
Not the evidence itself. AI can build the chronology, gather the document references and tidy the structure, but the account must come from the witness in the witness's own words.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Yes, but you can only charge for time you actually spent, and the total still has to be fair and reasonable. If AI cuts the hours, either the bill falls or you agree a different basis with the client in advance.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Run a short trial on real matters with a small named group, decide in advance what a good result looks like, and check the confidentiality position before any client papers go near the tool.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
AI can build a first map of an unfamiliar file quickly: what happened, when, who said what, and where the gaps are. The fee earner still has to read the documents that matter and decide what the file means.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
Record what the AI was asked to do, what a fee earner checked, and what the fee earner concluded. The file needs to show human judgement, not a transcript of every prompt.
Read the answer
· 4 min read
It depends on how predictable your usage is. Subscriptions suit steady, firm-wide use; pay per use suits firms still testing whether AI earns its keep, and it fails cheaply if it does not.
Read the answer
· 4 min read
Supervision of AI-assisted work is the same duty you already owe, applied to a new tool: set the boundaries, review the output, and keep the qualified person accountable for what leaves the firm.
Read the answer
· 4 min read
AI can read a set of papers page by page, help you index and cross-reference them, and flag pages it could not read, but the final bundle and its accuracy remain the fee earner's responsibility.
Read the answer
· 4 min read
AI can count dates from the papers and show the working, with each step tied to the rule that allows it. The firm's diary system still governs, and a fee earner must check the result.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
A workable AI policy names the tools people may use, the work they may use them for, what must never be pasted into a general tool, and who checks the output before it leaves the firm.
Read the answer
· 5 min read
In most cases yes, because your policy responds to the legal work you deliver, not the tools you used. The risk is not a gap in cover but a claim you could have avoided, and a renewal form you answered carelessly.
Read the answer· 5 min read
There is no blanket duty to announce every tool you use, but clients must understand what they are paying for and who sees their information. Most firms handle this with a short line in the engagement letter and a fuller answer when asked.
Read the answerCreate an account, open a matter and put a real question to it. Every point it makes names where it came from.
Get started
