Internal Access The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce says existing law already makes failure to use AI a potential negligence risk. The question is no longer whether to adopt AI — it is whether to get it right.
The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce published its latest legal statement on July 9. In it, the taskforce made clear that lawyers and other professionals can be sued for negligence for failing to use artificial intelligence.
This is not speculation. It is a formal legal position from a body whose previous statements on cryptoassets and smart contracts have been adopted directly by English judges and relied on by international investors choosing English law for technology transactions.
Whether a professional has been negligent for not using AI depends on whether a reasonable professional of comparable rank or specialism should have used it in that context.
The UKJT’s statement is specific:
Whether there is a breach of duty in failing to use AI will, of course, be judged according to whether a reasonable professional of a comparable rank/specialism should have used AI in that context.
The standard is the same as it always has been for professional tools. A solicitor is not negligent for not using Word because there are perfectly good alternatives. But if a reasonable solicitor would use Word in a given situation, the failure to do so becomes relevant.
The UKJT gives one concrete example: a solicitor in the Business and Property Courts failing to advise a client that it may wish to consider some form AI-assisted tool to review large volumes of documents.
The implication is straightforward. If a reasonable solicitor would use AI to handle document review in a particular case, the failure to even consider it may be a breach of duty.
The negligence risk is not just for failing to use AI. Using AI carelessly is also a breach of duty.
The taskforce identifies several scenarios where professionals are likely to be found negligent for their use of AI:
The statement also flags a specific security risk: a solicitor putting confidential or privileged information into an AI system that is not suitably secure and confidential is highly likely to be in breach of duty to their client.
This last point is the one most likely to keep firms awake at night. The UKJT’s position is that professionals must understand not just how AI works but where the data goes and who can access it.
If a firm is using a cloud AI service, the question is not whether the service provider has security measures in place — it is whether those measures are adequate for the data being processed and whether the firm has independently verified them.
Matthew Lavy KC, chair of the UKJT’s drafting committee, put it this way:
We have reached the view that providing remedies for AI harms does not require a new liability regime, and that English law’s existing approach to legal liability already provides a coherent framework for analysing where responsibility should fall.
The point is that existing law covers AI liability. No new legislation is needed. The duty to exercise reasonable care and skill applies to AI in the same way it applies to any professional tool.
For the legal profession, the UKJT’s statement is a signal. AI is no longer an optional add-on. It is a tool that reasonable professionals are expected to use in appropriate situations.
But that comes with obligations. Firms need to:
The firms that treat this seriously will be better positioned to demonstrate that they have met their professional obligations. The firms that ignore it may find themselves answering questions about why they did not act when a reasonable professional would have.
The UKJT’s statement does not tell firms to buy into every AI product on the market. It tells them to make considered decisions.
That means understanding what AI can and cannot do, what security risks it introduces, and what controls are appropriate for different types of work. It means having policies, not just opinions, about when and how AI is used.
For many firms, this is a question of building competence rather than purchasing capability. The technology is widely available. The real challenge is deploying it responsibly — with proper due diligence, adequate training, and genuine oversight.
Getting this wrong is a risk. Not using it at all, in appropriate circumstances, may be one too.
JD Fortress AI deploys secure, on-premises AI for law firms across the UK. If you are exploring whether AI is right for your practice and how to get started, get in touch for a confidential discussion — no pitch, just practical talk.
If you're thinking about secure AI for your business, we'd love to have a conversation.
Get in Touch →