Artificial intelligence is becoming an increasingly common tool within legal practice. From legal research and document preparation to administrative support, AI has the potential to improve efficiency at the Bar. However, the increasing use of artificial intelligence in legal practice has prompted courts and regulators to consider the risks associated with inaccurate AI-generated material, confidentiality, and the continuing professional responsibilities of lawyers.
Recent judicial decisions and regulatory developments have made clear that AI does not alter a barrister’s existing professional obligations. The central principle remains straightforward: a barrister is personally responsible for the accuracy and propriety of all work submitted in their name, whether or not AI has assisted in its preparation.
The Ayinde judgment and the courts warning on AI
The issue came into sharp focus in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank, a Divisional Court judgment handed down by Dame Victoria Sharp, President of the King’s Bench Division, and Mr Justice Johnson.
In one of the cases before the court, judicial review grounds prepared by a barrister contained five authorities that did not exist. When copies were requested by the opposing party, none could be produced. The court found that the threshold for contempt proceedings had been met, although contempt proceedings were not ultimately pursued. Wasted costs orders were made, and the barrister was referred to the Bar Standards Board.
The judgment did not create new professional duties. Instead, it reinforced long-established obligations requiring legal representatives to verify authorities, ensure accuracy in court documents, and avoid misleading the court. The judges also highlighted the importance of professional supervision and encouraged legal institutions to consider the implications of AI misuse within legal practice.
The BSB’s AI guidance
Against this background, the Bar Standards Board published its Guidance on the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Other Technologies on 18 May 2026.
The BSB made clear that the guidance does not create new rules. Instead, it explains how the existing Core Duties and requirements in the BSB Handbook apply when barristers use AI and other technologies.
Duty to the Court
The BSB emphasises that the duty to the court remains paramount. Barristers must carefully review and verify any AI-assisted work before relying on it in pleadings, written submissions or oral advocacy.
The use of AI does not transfer responsibility to software providers or technology platforms. If inaccurate information is presented to a court, responsibility remains with the barrister who submits it.
Honesty and integrity
The guidance highlights that barristers must maintain the highest standards of honesty and integrity when using AI.
A barrister cannot excuse inaccurate, misleading or fabricated material by claiming that it was generated by an AI system. Professional accountability remains with the individual practitioner.
Confidentiality and data protection
The BSB warns that the use of AI tools may create risks relating to confidentiality, legal professional privilege and data protection.
Before entering client information into any AI system, barristers should understand how that information is processed, stored and used. They must ensure that their use of technology complies with their duties of confidentiality and relevant data protection obligations.
Competence and understanding AI
The guidance also emphasises the importance of technological competence. Barristers should understand both the capabilities and limitations of the AI tools they choose to use.
This includes recognising the risk that AI systems may generate inaccurate information, sometimes described as “hallucinations”, including incorrect case citations, quotations or legal analysis.
The Bar Council’s practical guidance
The Bar Council has also issued guidance on the responsible use of generative AI. Unlike BSB guidance, it does not have the same regulatory status under the BSB Handbook, but it provides practical assistance to barristers using AI tools.
The Bar Council’s guidance discusses both general-purpose AI systems and legal-specific platforms. It emphasises that AI may assist legal work, but its outputs must be independently checked and lawyers must continue to apply their own professional judgment.
When launching the updated guidance, Barbara Mills KC, Chair of the Bar Council, warned that recent case law had highlighted the dangers of AI misuse by lawyers and the potential consequences for public confidence in the administration of justice.
The Civil Justice Council’s consultation
The wider justice system is also considering whether procedural changes are needed to address the increasing use of AI in litigation.
In February 2026, the Civil Justice Council launched a consultation examining the use of AI in the preparation of court documents. The proposals considered different categories of documents, including witness statements and expert reports.
One proposal was that legal representatives could be required to confirm that AI had not been used to generate or alter the substantive content of witness evidence. The consultation has concluded and the Civil Justice Council’s final recommendations are awaited.
AI is a tool, not a replacement for professional judgment
Neither the BSB nor the Bar Council has prohibited the use of artificial intelligence by barristers.
The regulatory approach is that AI can provide benefits when used appropriately, but it does not reduce a barrister’s responsibilities to the court, clients or the wider administration of justice.
The key lesson from the recent guidance and case law is that technology does not replace professional judgment. Barristers must continue to verify authorities, check the accuracy of legal analysis, protect confidential information and ensure that all work carried out in their name meets the standards required by the BSB Handbook.