Using AI consistently with your professional obligations as a barrister

AI does not create a separate category of professional responsibility. The existing duties governing a barrister's work continue to apply, whether a task is completed manually, delegated to another person or supported by software.

The BSB's May 2026 guidance does not discourage the use of AI. It recognises that these tools may improve efficiency and the quality or accessibility of legal services. The central requirement is that their use remains consistent with the BSB Handbook.

Responsibility for the work remains with the barrister.

Responsibility cannot be outsourced

The use of an AI tool is treated as outsourcing under the BSB Handbook. It does not transfer responsibility to the developer, provider or system.

This is particularly relevant to the:

• duty to the court in the administration of justice (CD1);
• duties to act with honesty and integrity (CD3);
• duty to maintain independence (CD4); and
• duty not to diminish public trust and confidence in the profession (CD5).

A barrister must ensure that material placed before the court is accurate and does not mislead. This applies to authorities, quotations, factual propositions and submissions produced with the assistance of a tool.

AI may help identify relevant material, organise information or suggest possible lines of enquiry. It cannot decide whether a submission is properly arguable, what advice should be given or which position should be adopted. Those remain matters of professional judgment.

The relevant question is therefore not whether AI contributed to a piece of work, but whether the barrister has independently satisfied themselves that the finished work meets the required professional standard.

Choose the tool and use case proportionately

The duties to act in the client's best interests (CD2), provide a competent standard of work and service (CD7) and manage a practice competently (CD10) require a proportionate assessment of the proposed use.

Different tools perform very different functions. Some retrieve or extract information from identified sources. Others summarise documents, generate text or carry out tasks with limited supervision. The risks depend on both the system and the way it is being used.

Before adopting a tool, a barrister should understand:

• what task it is designed to perform;
• whether it retrieves, extracts or generates information;
• whether its outputs can be traced to primary material;
• its relevant limitations and likely failure modes;
• what happens to information entered into it; and
• whether it is suitable for the particular client and matter.

The level of scrutiny should reflect the consequences of error. Administrative assistance presents a different risk from analysing evidence, preparing advice or drafting material for use in court.

The duty to act in the client's best interests also means that efficiency is not enough by itself. A tool should be used where it is likely to improve the service provided, taking account of accuracy, confidentiality, cost and the availability of safer or more reliable alternatives.

Protect confidentiality and privilege

Under CD6, barristers must keep each client's affairs confidential.

Before uploading case materials or entering client information, a barrister should understand:

• who can access the data;
• where it will be processed;
• how long it will be retained;
• whether it may be used to train or improve models;
• which subcontractors or subprocessors are involved; and
• whether data may be transferred outside the United Kingdom.

A general assurance that a service is secure is not enough. The contractual terms and technical arrangements must be suitable for confidential legal work.

Free and consumer-facing services may permit broad retention, provider access or the use of prompts and uploaded documents for product development. They should not be assumed suitable for client-specific work merely because they are widely available.

The same analysis may also engage legal professional privilege, data-protection law and restrictions on the use or disclosure of material from proceedings. Ease of upload is not a reason to upload information that does not need to be shared.

Where a chambers or organisation adopts a shared system, it must also consider whether confidential information could become accessible to other members, staff or teams, including those acting for another party.

Verify according to consequence

The duty of verification follows from the duties owed to the court, the client and the profession.

AI-assisted material should be checked before it is relied upon. The appropriate level of checking depends on the task:

• factual summaries should be checked against the underlying documents;
• quotations should be checked against the original text;
• legal propositions should be confirmed through authoritative sources;
• draft submissions should be reviewed independently for accuracy, relevance and whether they are properly arguable.

Particular care is required where the system generates a finished answer without showing how it reached it. Fluency and detail are not evidence that the underlying work is correct.

Tools that link outputs to identified sources may make verification easier, but they do not remove the need for it. A source link establishes where to check the proposition; it does not establish that the proposition has been interpreted correctly.

Verification should also include omissions. A summary may accurately describe the material it includes while failing to identify an important document, qualification or competing account.

The objective is not to repeat every task manually. It is to carry out enough independent review to be able to take professional responsibility for the result.

Bias, transparency and governance

Under CD8, barristers must not discriminate unlawfully. AI systems may reproduce patterns or biases present in their training data or design.

This does not mean that every output should be presumed biased. It means that outputs should not be presumed neutral, particularly where a task concerns credibility, risk, vulnerability or characteristics correlated with protected status.

Personal characteristics should only be included where relevant, and outputs that may be affected by bias should be checked through other evidence or methods.

There is no general requirement to disclose every use of AI. Disclosure may, however, be necessary where:

• the client, court or regulator asks;
• it is required by law, procedural rules or court practice;
• the use materially affects the nature or scope of the service; or
• failing to disclose it would create a misleading impression.

Transparency should focus on information that the client or court reasonably needs, rather than disclosure for its own sake.

Competent practice management under CD10 may require policies covering approved tools, prohibited uses, data handling, verification, access controls, training and error reporting. The scale of the arrangements should be proportionate to the scale and sensitivity of the use.

The duty to be open and co-operative with regulators under CD9 does not require routine reporting of AI use. It does require candour and an ability to provide appropriate information if a relevant question arises. Sensible records of significant uses and decisions may assist with that.

A practical standard

Before using an AI-enabled tool for legal work, a barrister should be able to answer five questions:

1. Is its use in the client's best interests?
2. Do I understand what it does and where it may fail?
3. Are confidentiality, privilege and personal data adequately protected?
4. Can I verify the material on which I intend to rely?
5. Am I still exercising — and able to explain — my own professional judgment?

Used carefully, AI can reduce repetitive work, improve access to information and support more thorough preparation. The professional duties do not prevent those benefits from being realised. They establish the conditions under which the tools can properly be used.

The duties remain with the barrister. The technology should support their exercise, rather than obscure or displace them.