31.07.2026
On 18 May 2026, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) published its long-awaited guidance on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and other technologies by barristers. The BSB has made clear that it supports the use of technologies, including AI, "where they are likely to benefit practice management, or the availability, quality or client experience of barristers' services" .
Within days of its publication, the courts had illustrated precisely why such guidance is necessary. The judgment in Cork & Anor v Smith [2026] EWHC 1199 (Ch), handed down on 22 May 2026, saw a major law firm publicly scolded for misleading the court through the use of unchecked AI. This article considers whether the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) can responsibly continue to leave solicitors without equivalent guidance.
What Does the BSB Guidance Cover?
The guidance has been issued primarily to address the risks posed by utilising AI tools within the legal services professions, although its underlying principles apply to all technology. It follows the stages of AI adoption chronologically, from initial consideration to ongoing use, and addresses matters ranging from due diligence to the use of AI tools by opposing counsel or clients.
The guidance establishes obligations for barrister that align with the existing BSB Core Duties. Barristers remain personally responsible for their conduct and professional work when using AI tools, including any inaccuracies introduced through their use. Crucially, the guidance treats the use of AI and other technologies as “outsourcing” under rC86. This means barristers remain “responsible for their work and for compliance with BSB obligations when using AI” .
Regarding transparency, where the use of AI materially impacts the nature or scope of the legal service provided by barristers, they must act with honesty, integrity and ensure their clients understand both the impact and risks posed.
The guidance also flags the risk of biases, noting that certain AI responses can reflect prejudices embedded in the programme’s data. The BSB have urged barristers to adopt particular caution when working in practice areas that engage with vulnerable clients or those with protected characteristics.
The guidance has been established around a risk-based framework that encourages barristers to take a risk-based approach when using all technology. Barristers are expected to demonstrate a proactive and considered approach to managing technology risks, with the level of scrutiny applied being proportionate to the potential harm.
A Warning from the Courts
The need for AI regulation was brought into the spotlight just days after the BSB published its guidance, when Judge Mullen provided his handed down judgment in the case of Cork & Anor v Smith [2026] . In the case, Judge Mullen found that Pinsent Masons had misled the court on two separate occasions: first, by submitting references that contained AI hallucinations, and second, by using AI to draft an inaccurate explanatory follow-up letter.
In his judgment, Judge Mullen offered a clear warning to the profession: "AI has the potential to be wholly unreliable. AI may of course provide a jumping off point for research and legal reasoning, but it does not, at least at present, do away with the need for proper research and thought on the part of a legal professional".
The failures identified in this case such as over-reliance on AI, inadequate supervision, and an absence of candour regarding the use of AI, directly relate to the issues the BSB guidance seeks to address. Solicitors are subject to the equivalent of duties under the SRA's Code of Conduct, yet there currently is no specific guidance published by the SRA setting out how those duties interact with the use of AI in legal practice.
The SRA have provided compliance ‘tips’ for firms looking to begin using AI such as questions to consider before buying lawtech, but they are yet to release any specific AI-related guidance on how the technology should be used by solicitors. The current position held by the SRA is that the core expectations of solicitors in the Principles and Codes of Conduct extend to and apply directly to the use of AI.
However, the firm's self-referral to the SRA is itself telling. The regulator will no doubt adjudicate on this AI-related professional misconduct by applying the core principles that it expects everyone regulated by it to adhere to.
Should the SRA Follow Suit?
The short answer is yes.
Solicitors interact with clients at every stage of the legal process, often at the earliest and most vulnerable phases. The absence of equivalent SRA guidance leaves solicitors navigating a significant professional shift without a clear regulatory framework. The BSB guidance provides a compelling template: the principles governing accuracy, supervision, transparency, and client protection apply with equal force to solicitors.
While solicitors are bound by the SRA’s overarching Principles and Codes of Conduct, without AI-specific guidance they lack an authoritative steer on which AI tools are appropriate for legal practice and in what circumstances. As AI becomes an increasingly prominent feature of everyday legal practice, the SRA's silence is not a neutral position — it is a regulatory gap with real consequences.
The case of Cork & Anor v Smith [2026] demonstrates that the consequences extend beyond reputational damage and reach into the integrity of professional conduct, the protection of clients, and ultimately the proper administration of justice. It comes as no surprise that the Law Society has now called upon both the SRA and Ministry of Justice to issue the necessary AI guidance . Therefore, it is likely that following Cork & Anor v Smith [2026], it will only be a matter of time before the SRA follows the BSB and releases their own long-awaited AI guidance.
Authors
Martha Tyler (Paralegal) and assisted by Emma Brooks (Partner)
back to news and insights