Will AI replace Modern Solicitors? Innovation, Efficiency, and Professional Risk in the Legal Profession.

ABSTRACT.

Artificial Intelligence is increasingly influencing the legal profession by supporting legal research, document review, contract drafting and administrative work. This article will examine whether AI has potential to replace modern solicitors by considering its efficiency, innovation and professional risk within the legal sector. This article will argue that AI does offer clear benefits for law firms, through saving time, reducing costs, and increasing capacity in the delivery of legal services. However, it also raises significant professional concerns, including inaccurate information and bias, lack of transparency and confidentiality, and the over-reliance issues surrounding AI. The article will argue that AI cannot be treated as an independent legal advisor, highlighting its inability to replace a solicitor’s judgement, ethical responsibility, and client rust and accountability. Overall, that AI is more likely to reshape the role of modern solicitors rather than replace them entirely.

Artificial intelligence, AI, is a form of computer science that creates systems which replicate a form of human intelligence and problem-solving abilities.[1] Within the legal profession, AI is increasingly being used to assist with legal research, document review, contract drafting, and administrative tasks. The significant incorporation of AI in modern law has created debate about whether AI will replace modern solicitors and change the delivery of legal services.

Focusing on the clear benefits to the incorporation of AI, such as the innovative approach it holds to improve efficiency and capacity in law firms, whilst reducing costs through more flexible and faster services. It regardless raises issues of professional risks, such as the accuracy of the information it provides, the bias and over-reliance, and issues with confidentiality and accountability. This essay will argue that AI is unlikely to replace modern solicitors entirely and instead will reshape the profession by automating routine tasks leaving solicitors responsible for legal judgment, ethical decision making, client trust and professional accountability.

AI and how it is used.

Ai has become increasingly embedded within legal practice, affecting both client-facing work and the internal operations of law firms. This year, AI usage has doubled, with 40% of law firms stating their organisations use it, and 90% of its users expecting it to become a central part of their workflow within five years.[2] AI has therefore been described to be ‘redefining industries including the legal sector’, as law firms are ‘increasingly recognising its transformative potential’.^[3] In practice, AI is used in a variety of ways. Externally, firms use AI chatbots, which are designed to stimulate conversation with users through predefined responses.[4] Triage systems are also used to respond to legal inquiries, collect preliminary client information and to assess the urgency of potential cases. This supports smart routing, which is a system developed with AI which assigns cases to correct departments efficiently.[5] Internally, AI can assist in administrative tasks and business planning, while also assisting with legal research, document review, and contract generation. As a result, AI is not only influencing the type of work completed by solicitors, but the speed, cost and organisation of the legal services.

Optimising Efficiency and Technological Innovation in Legal Service Delivery.

The main efficiency benefit of AI for law firms is its ability to process large volumes of information quickly and consistently. This is particularly valuable in document-heavy areas such as commercial law and dispute resolution, when routine review can be reduced from weeks to seconds. AI can accelerate legal research and shorten document review by identifying relevant and key information, summarising relevant material and flagging any issues. This allows solicitors to use their time more effectively, rather than spending time on excessive and repetitive review. Solicitors can focus their expertise on legal analysis, client advice, and negotiation and strategy. Therefore, AI does not simply make legal work faster, it changes how solicitors focus their time and usage within a law firm, allowing legal expertise to be applied where it is most valuable.

AI also improves efficiency by reducing costs. If less time is spent on document-based work and administrative tasks, firms may lower the cost of legal services and offer more predictable pricing such as fixed-fee arrangements.[6] This is a significant as legal advice is often expensive and inaccessible for individuals and small businesses. Access to legal aid has already been restricted by the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, leaving some individuals to navigate the legal system with little to no professional support.[7] AI cannot entirely solve this issue, especially where more vulnerable people cannot access online tools or understand legal information without guidance. However, for those who can use digital services, AI may provide a quicker and more affordable first step in legal advice through asking basic questions, submitting initial information and identifying whether they require further legal advice.

A further efficiency benefit is that AI increases capacity of law firms.[8] By reducing time spent on legal research, document review, and contract drafting, firms may be able to take on more clients without lowering the quality of their legal advice.[9] This is particularly beneficial to smaller law firms, who often lack administrative support and resources which are available for larger firms. AI can help smaller firms carry out more comprehensive work, expand their services, and compete more effectively within the legal sector. This also benefits clients, who expect speed, cost certainty and legal practical advice. Ai’s value therefore lies in its ability to save time, reduce costs, and increasing capacity to support routine work. Rather than replacing solicitors, it allows legal work to be completed more quickly and consistently, preserving professional responsibility and judgement. 

AI is also innovative because it changes the delivery of legal services. Law firms are no longer limited to traditional methods of manual review, administrative processing, and in-person advice. Instead, AI allows firms to use digital tools to provide faster, more flexible and responsive legal services. This is important for smaller firms, as AI can provide access to resources which are predominantly available for larger firms who have greater staff, and financial resources.  Through this innovative approach, smaller firms can handle higher volume of work without extensive administrative support, allowing smaller practices to compete more confidently within the legal market through new technology.[10]

AI further encourages innovation in legal strategy.[11] One of its key strengths is the ability to process and analyse large volumes of data allowing firms to identify ‘trends, patterns and relevant precedent’ more efficiently.[12] This changes how solicitors approach case analysis, risk assessment and client strategy, as advice can become more tailored based on commercial awareness and data. By using AI to organise data and information to identify patterns, solicitors can provide more strategic and objective tailored advice. Using AI does not remove the need for legal judgement, it assists in identifying relevant information, and solicitors still remain responsible to interpret this, apply the law, and then advising the clients on the best course of action.

This innovation also changes the relationship between law firms and clients. ^[13] AI chatbots and triage systems helps clients access basic legal information and submit initial details and be directed to the correct legal team at an earlier stage. This improves client experience and allows workflow to be managed allowing firms to manage inquiries more effectively in the increasingly technology-driven legal market.[14] An example of this is Harvey AI, a generative AI designed to assist lawyers across different areas of law such as contract analysis, litigation preparation, and due diligence.[15] This shows how AI can improve efficiency and the quality of legal services when used in accordance.[16] It cannot replace the judgement of solicitors, and legal expertise, knowledge, and accountability which is required of the legal profession.

Professional risks, Ethical Dilemmas and Liability issues.

Despite any given benefits to the use of AI, it creates significant professional risks. The United Kingdom’s approach to AI regulation is risk-based. The focus lies not on whether AI is used, but on how it is used and whether the use creates a professional risk.[17] This is reflected in the UK’s five cross-sectoral regulatory principles, these being:

1. Safety, security and robustness,
2. Appropriate transparency and explainability,
3. Fairness,
4. Accountability and governance,
5. Contestability and redress. [18]

These principles are relevant to legal practice, due to solicitors owing a professional duty to their clients, the court and justice. AI therefore may improve efficiency and innovation. However, it must be used within a framework of supervision, verification and professional accountability.

A major risk is transparency. Solicitors are under professional duties to act with honesty under SRA principle 4, and to act in the best interest of each client under SRA principle 7.[19] Where AI is used to assist with legal research, document review or advice, firms should be clear with clients on how the AI was used, especially when advice is being provided.  The difficulty in this lies in that AI systems do not provide explanation for how answers have been produced. A solicitor’s duty to explain how it was used, whilst simultaneously supervising the output and taking responsibility for any of the final advice, which is given to the client, is therefore harder to do.[20] If a solicitor uses AI without understanding its limits, this creates professional risk.[21] The client’s best interest must remain at the centre of the decision made by a solicitor. Therefore, firms should have systems and controls in place to ensure that AI technology is being used responsibly.[22]

In light of this, this creates a risk of confidentiality and data protection. Law firms handle sensitive client information, such as personal data and commercial documents. Information as such being entered into AI systems which are unsuitable, create a risk of confidential material becoming exposed or stored and used inappropriately.[23] This could breach the solicitor’s duty of confidentiality,[24] and damage trust which is central to a client and solicitor relationship, and confidence in the legal profession.[25] It may also create issues with data protection, where personal information is processed without using reasonable safeguards.[26] To minimise these risks, law firms must choose appropriate AI systems, train staff on what information can be entered safely, and to ensure accountability and transparency to clients on how their information is being processed with AI.[27] AI may assist legal work, but this is not enough to justify privacy or confidentiality being breached.

The use of AI further raises ethical issues of inaccurate generated answers, and bias. Generative AI systems can produce false, legally incorrect, or incomplete legal authorities and legal information. In legal practice, this can pose significant issues. A false cases or incorrect legal principles being applied, especially in litigation, can mislead a client or court. This would conflict with professional duties, such as acting with integrity under SRA principle 1, and the duty to not mislead clients under SRA principle 5,[28] including the duty to not mislead clients or the court under the SRA code of conduct.[29] Recent cases have shown the seriousness of this risk. In the case of, Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank, the court ruled that the misuse of Generative AI by legal professionals is a severe breach of professional duty, and that lawyers are responsible for verifying AI-generated citations.[30] Similarly, in the case of Gary Elden v The Commissioners for HMRC, the tribunal set new strict rules for AI verification and a statement of truth regarding how much AI was used for arguments, demanding case judgements and direct quotations, highlighting that the lawyer is responsible for the accuracy of the material placed before the court.[31] These examples highlight that AI is not treated, and shall not be treated, as a legal advisor. They place importance on solicitor’s requirement to check the accuracy of any AI material before relying on it and using it. This highlights that AI cannot replace solicitors and the legal profession per the mistakes which AI makes and the risks to professional conduct it poses.

Moreover, bias also further is a significant concern. As AI systems are trained on large datasets, and if there is any inaccurate or biased information, this will produce biased outcomes.[32] In legal practice, this will have serious consequences, such as in areas of criminal justice and litigation where decisions will affect vulnerable individuals. Biased AI legal advice, or information, can lead to misjustice and unfair and discriminatory outcomes. This is why transparency and accountability in regards of AI usage is significant, as law firms need to understand the limits of the tools which they are using, and they need to ensure that AI does not reinforce unfair and distorted legal decision-making.[33]

The over-reliance of AI can further pose issues which lead to a wider issue of accountability. AI can seem attractive to law firms due to its quick and confident answers, which can encourage solicitor usage without scrutiny. In legal practice, this raises the issue of solicitors lacking independent judgement which is required of the profession as solicitors remain responsible for the advice they provide. Without effective scrutiny, this creates issues of defective advice, with lack of relevant and correct legal principles, which misleads clients and potentially the court. This further can expose not only the solicitor, but the law firm to professional negligence claims, regulatory investigations and reputational damage. Therefore, this shows that AI cannot replace solicitors, AI requires proper governance, policies, staff training and monitoring of operations.[34]

This is central to the question of whether AI will replace modern solicitors. Accountability cannot be transferred from solicitor to AI. AI lacks human judgement, ethical awareness, and contextual understanding. It cannot properly assess a client’s priorities, and any consequence of inaccurate advice in litigation. Although its strength lies in assisting in research, drafting and analysis, it simply cannot replace solicitor work. The solicitor still remains accountable for the vigorous application of legal judgement ensuring clients and the court are not mislead, which is something AI fails to do. This is central to why AI is unlikely to replace modern solicitors.  

Will AI replace Modern Solicitors?

Although AI is transforming legal practice, it is unlikely to replace modern solicitors. It holds strong impact on the profession on routine and repetitive tasks, rather on the whole professional role of the solicitor itself. AI may assist with legal research, document review and drafting, and administrative work due to its speed and ability to process large volumes of information. This can reduce the amount of time which solicitors spend on basic review and drafting, particularly in areas such as commercial law which is document heavy. However, replacing tasks is different from replacing the role of a solicitor. Legal practice as a whole requires more than just processing information, solicitors are expected to interpret the law and understand clients’ objectives whilst understanding risks and exercising ethical judgement. Solicitors are required to hold themselves accountable for any advice which they provide. These professional duties of the profession simply cannot be replaced by AI.

AI is therefore more likely to reshape skills required of solicitors, but it will not remove the need for them. The future of AI in law lies in the improvement of efficiency through innovation in the delivery of legal services. The professional risks of AI show why human involvement is essential. Issues with accuracy, confidentiality, bias, transparency, over-reliance and accountability means that AI cannot be treated solely as a legal advisor. Solicitors will still remain responsible for protecting client interests, verifying legal information and exercising judgement which AI simply cannot do. AI therefore should be understood to be a tool which will help aid the legal profession rather than replace it. The future of the legal sector does not depend on AI alone, but the effectiveness of solicitors and how they will use it while maintaining professional responsibility, ethical judgement, and most importantly client trust in the profession.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASES:

Gary Elden v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 41 (TC) [59]

R (on the application of Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).

LEGISLATION:

Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Principles’ SRA Standards and Regulations (2019) https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/accessed 20 June 2026, principle 2.

Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Principles’ SRA Standards and Regulations (2019) https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/accessed 20 June 2026, principle 1 and 5.

Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs’ in SRA Standards and Regulations (2019) org.ukaccessed 20 June 2026, rule 1.4 and 2.1.

Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Principles’ SRA Standards and Regulations (2019) https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/ accessed 20 June 2026, principle 4 and 7.

Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs’ in SRA Standards and Regulations (2019) https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/accessed 23 June 2026, rule 6.3.

Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘Compliance tips for solicitors’ (SRA) https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/innovate/compliance-tips-for-solicitors/ accessed 20 June 2026.

Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘Risk Outlook report: The use of artificial intelligence in the legal market’ (SRA, 20 November 2023) https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/artificial-intelligence-legal-market/ accessed 20 June 2026.

SECONDARY SOURCES:

Cecily Mauran, ‘OpenAI says ChatGPT bug exposed user data, including credit card info’ (Mashable, 24 March 2023) https://mashable.com/article/openai-chatgpt-bug-exposed-user-data-privacy-breach accessed 20 June 2026.

Irene Pietropaoli, Use of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2023) https://www.biicl.org/documents/170_use_of_artificial_intelligence_in_legal_practice_final.pdf accessed 20 June 2026.

Liz Griffiths and Tom Whittaker, ‘What is the UK position on AI regulation?’ (Burges Salmon, 2 April 2024) https://www.burges-salmon.com/articles/102j49o/what-is-the-uk-position-on-ai-regulation/accessed 20 June 2026.

Stu White, ‘How AI is reshaping the future of legal practice’ (The Law Society, 20 November 2024) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ai-and-lawtech/partner-content/how-ai-is-reshaping-the-future-of-legal-practice accessed 23 June 2026.

Tableau, ‘What is the history of artificial intelligence (AI)?’ (Tableau) https://www.tableau.com/data-insights/ai/historyaccessed 19 June 2026.

Thomson Reuters, 2026 AI in Professional Services Report (Thomson Reuters, 2026) https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/reports/2026-ai-in-professional-services-report accessed 19 June 2026.

The Law Society, ‘Artificial intelligence (AI) strategy’ (The Law Society, 16 September 2024) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ai-and-lawtech/artificial-intelligence-ai-strategy accessed 23 June 2026.

The Law Society, ‘Generative AI: the essentials’ (The Law Society, 1 October 2025) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ai-and-lawtech/generative-ai-the-essentials accessed 20 June 2026.

[1] Tableau, ‘What is the history of artificial intelligence (AI)?’ (Tableau) https://www.tableau.com/data-insights/ai/history accessed 19 June 2026.

[2] Thomson Reuters, 2026 AI in Professional Services Report (Thomson Reuters, 2026) https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/reports/2026-ai-in-professional-services-report accessed 19 June 2026.

[3] Stu White, ‘How AI is reshaping the future of legal practice’ (The Law Society, 20 November 2024) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ai-and-lawtech/partner-content/how-ai-is-reshaping-the-future-of-legal-practiceaccessed 20 June 2026.

[4] https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ai-and-lawtech/generative-ai-the-essentials

[5] https://www.checkbox.ai/videos/legal-intake-triage-demo

[6] https://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.co.uk/blog/2024/01/24/ais-impact-on-law-firms-of-every-size/

[7] https://post.parliament.uk/research-briefings/post-pn-0758/

[8] https://legalsolutions.thomsonreuters.co.uk/blog/2024/01/24/ais-impact-on-law-firms-of-every-size/

[9] ibid.

[10] Stu White, ‘How AI is reshaping the future of legal practice’ (The Law Society, 20 November 2024) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ai-and-lawtech/partner-content/how-ai-is-reshaping-the-future-of-legal-practiceaccessed 20 June 2026.

[11] ibid.

[12] ibid.

[13] ibid.

[14] The Law Society, ‘Artificial intelligence (AI) strategy’ (The Law Society, 16 September 2024) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ai-and-lawtech/artificial-intelligence-ai-strategy accessed 20 June 2026.

[15] The Law Society, ‘Generative AI: the essentials’ (The Law Society, 1 October 2025) https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ai-and-lawtech/generative-ai-the-essentials accessed 20 June 2026.

[16] ibid.

[17] Liz Griffiths and Tom Whittaker, ‘What is the UK position on AI regulation?’ (Burges Salmon, 2 April 2024) https://www.burges-salmon.com/articles/102j49o/what-is-the-uk-position-on-ai-regulation/ accessed 20 June 2026.

[18] ibid.

[19] Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Principles’ SRA Standards and Regulations (2019) https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/ accessed 20 June 2026, principle 4 and 7.

[20] Irene Pietropaoli, Use of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2023) https://www.biicl.org/documents/170_use_of_artificial_intelligence_in_legal_practice_final.pdf accessed 20 June 2026.

[21] ibid.

[22] Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘Compliance tips for solicitors’ (SRA) https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/innovate/compliance-tips-for-solicitors/ accessed 20 June 2026.

[23] (Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘Risk Outlook report: The use of artificial intelligence in the legal market’ (SRA, 20 November 2023) https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/artificial-intelligence-legal-market/ accessed 20 June 2026.

[24] Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs’ in SRA Standards and Regulations (2019) https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/accessed 23 June 2026, rule 6.3.

[25] Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Principles’ SRA Standards and Regulations (2019) https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/ accessed 20 June 2026, principle 2.

[26] Irene Pietropaoli, Use of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2023) https://www.biicl.org/documents/170_use_of_artificial_intelligence_in_legal_practice_final.pdf accessed 20 June 2026.

[27] ibid.

[28] Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Principles’ SRA Standards and Regulations (2019) https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/ accessed 20 June 2026, principle 1 and 5.

[29] Solicitors Regulation Authority, ‘SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs and RFLs’ in SRA Standards and Regulations (2019) sra.org.uk accessed 20 June 2026, rule 1.4 and 2.1.

[30] R (on the application of Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).

[31] Gary Elden v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 41 (TC) [59]

[32] Irene Pietropaoli, Use of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2023) https://www.biicl.org/documents/170_use_of_artificial_intelligence_in_legal_practice_final.pdf accessed 20 June 2026.

[33] Liz Griffiths and Tom Whittaker, ‘What is the UK position on AI regulation?’ (Burges Salmon, 2 April 2024) https://www.burges-salmon.com/articles/102j49o/what-is-the-uk-position-on-ai-regulation/ accessed 20 June 2026.

[34] Cecily Mauran, ‘OpenAI says ChatGPT bug exposed user data, including credit card info’ (Mashable, 24 March 2023) https://mashable.com/article/openai-chatgpt-bug-exposed-user-data-privacy-breach accessed 20 June 2026.