Artificial intelligence (AI) has quickly moved beyond being a buzzword. In the past couple of years, it has become a defining force across the legal sector.
UK law firms are no longer simply testing the waters; they are committing budget, time, and reputational capital to AI, and increasingly positioning those capabilities as part of their client offering. For clients and legal professionals, the conversation has shifted. What matters now is not whether AI will reshape the legal service industry, but how effectively firms can harness it to deliver better outcomes in an increasingly complex and regulated environment.
Where the Legal Market Stands on AI
The UK’s largest firms continue to set the pace, but the gap between leaders and followers is becoming more pronounced. All of the top 20 firms are now publicly engaging with AI. This engagement is mostly through day-to-day tasks, and dedicated product offerings. Most firms have backed this up with investment or partnership with new platforms, such as Magic Circle Slaughter & May that recently rolled out Harvey firmwide. [1]
Across a wide range of law firms, generative AI tools are now supporting first-draft contract generation, summarising large disclosure sets, conducting legal research, and automating routine client reporting. In some cases, internal workflows have been redesigned around these tools, rather than simply layering AI on top of existing processes. All in all, AI adoption is accelerating globally. The Thomson Reuters 2026 AI Report [2] indicates that 41% of law firms are now actively using generative AI, up from 22% in 2025, and 12% in 2024.
More tellingly, 62% of professionals believe AI should be used in their work. That belief is already shaping investment decisions today, with firms under pressure to avoid being left behind.
Clients’ Expectations Are Rising, Yet Unclear
Client demand is becoming a decisive factor, but it is not yet fully formed. While 54% of clients say they want their legal advisers to be using AI, 67% admit they do not know whether their firms actually are. The challenge, therefore, is not simply adoption, it is visibility and trust.
Clients are beginning to expect tangible benefits: faster turnaround times, more predictable pricing, and improved accuracy in high-volume work. Yet many firms remain cautious about how much they disclose, particularly where AI tools are used in the background of legal workflows.
This creates a practical tension. Firms that are too quiet risk appearing outdated; those that overstate their use of AI risk raising questions about quality, legality and confidentiality. Clear communication is becoming as important as the technology itself: what is being used, where, when, and with what safeguards.
Balancing Opportunity, Risk, and Liability
One of the central concerns is liability. If an AI-generated output contains an error, responsibility ultimately remains with the supervising lawyer and the firm. This raises practical questions: how should AI outputs be verified, what level of human oversight is sufficient, and how should firms document their use of AI in case of disputes?
There are also confidentiality and data security considerations, particularly where third-party tools are involved. Firms must ensure that client information is not inadvertently exposed or reused in external systems, a risk that has already prompted stricter internal policies in many organisations.
At the same time, concerns about job displacement appear relatively limited. Fewer than 25% of professionals view AI as a threat to their job. In practice, most see it as a way to reduce time spent on repetitive tasks. The immediate effect is less about replacing lawyers and more about changing how their time is allocated, and, potentially, how that time is billed.
The Role of Regulation
Regulatory frameworks are beginning to take shape, adding another layer of complexity. In the UK, legal regulators and government bodies are exploring how existing professional standards apply to AI-assisted work, particularly in areas such as accountability, transparency, and client consent.
At a broader level, emerging frameworks like the EU’s AI Act are likely to have indirect effects on UK firms operating internationally, especially where they handle cross-border data or advise clients subject to those rules. Even where regulation is not yet prescriptive, firms are preparing for a more structured compliance environment.
This regulatory uncertainty reinforces the cautious approach seen across the sector. Firms are evaluating what AI can and should do, as well as how to demonstrate that their use of AI meets both professional and ethical standards.
What Comes Next
AI is reshaping legal practice in ways that go beyond efficiency gains. It is influencing how firms price their services, how they train their lawyers, and how they position themselves in an increasingly competitive market.
The firms that stand out will not necessarily be those using the most advanced tools, but those that integrate them thoughtfully, aligning technology with client expectations, maintaining clear oversight, and communicating their approach with confidence.
For legal professionals, AI is not replacing core expertise. It is changing where that expertise is applied. Routine work is increasingly handled by machines; judgment, interpretation, and client relationships remain firmly human. The challenge now is learning how to combine the two effectively.
[1] https://www.legalcheek.com/2026/05/slaughter-and-may-rolls-out-ai-giant-harvey-firmwide/
[2] https://www.thomsonreuters.com/content/dam/ewp-m/documents/thomsonreuters/en/pdf/reports/2026-ai-in-professional-services-report.pdf
