FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Barristers
The BSB says agentic AI, which acts automatically on its own output, is likely to be high risk for most applications at the Bar and should be considered with "absolute caution". Chambers systems touch every member's practice, so one badly controlled tool can affect many barristers at once.
Part of: AI in Barristers
In short
Chambers use automation for diaries, clerking, fee notes and client communications, and agentic AI tools can now send emails, accept instructions or update systems without a human step. The BSB guidance treats this as likely high risk, allowing low-risk automation such as reminder emails only with strict controls. Barristers remain responsible for automated actions under rC20 and rC86.3.b, and rC87 and rC89 require competent management of practice and chambers. When automation fails, a client's claim against a barrister usually falls on BMIF, but chambers' own losses and data incidents may need separate cover.
Clerks' rooms use software to manage diaries, allocate work, chase fees and send reminders. Newer tools add AI that can read incoming emails, propose or accept bookings, draft fee notes and reply to solicitors. Some can act across several systems at once. These are the "agentic" features the BSB has in mind: the tool does not just suggest, it acts.
The BSB's AI guidance says agentic features "are likely to be of high risk for most applications at the Bar and should be considered with absolute caution", and lists agentic AI among "likely high risk" uses. It accepts that low-risk automation, such as generating appointment reminder emails, may be acceptable with strict controls, and says "you remain responsible for any actions such a system may take" under rC20 and rC86.3.b. rC87 and rC89 require efficient and competent management of practice and chambers, and the governance section calls for access restrictions on shared chambers systems, audit logs and deletion policies.
In Ayinde the Divisional Court said at ¶9 that heads of chambers must take "practical and effective measures", and at ¶82 that guidance alone is not enough. For automation, that points to a chambers decision on which tools may act without human approval, who can configure them, how access is restricted by member and matter, and how errors are logged and reviewed. The same leadership duty applies to supervision of pupils and juniors.
Automation that drafts and sends fee notes, chases payment or replies to solicitors on a member's behalf carries its own risks. A fee note sent to the wrong solicitor discloses a client's identity and the nature of the matter. An automated reply that confirms availability or accepts instructions may commit a barrister to work that raises a conflict or that they cannot cover. The BSB's governance points apply: restrict access to what each tool needs, log what it sends, and keep a human approval step for anything that leaves chambers with a member's name on it.
Illustrative: chambers introduces an AI assistant that reads listing emails and updates members' diaries. It misreads a relisting notice and moves a hearing to the following week. No human checks the change. Counsel misses the hearing, the client's application is dismissed and the instructing solicitor seeks to recover the costs. Separately, the assistant had access to every member's inbox, and the vendor's audit log cannot show what else it read.
The client's claim against the barrister for the missed hearing is usually a civil liability claim within that barrister's compulsory BMIF cover, which on the BSB minimum terms has no AI exclusion. Other losses sit elsewhere. Disputes between members of chambers are a permitted exclusion. The BSB's PI page says the minimum terms do not require first-party cyber cover, so costs of investigating a system compromise, restoring data or notifying affected clients may need a cyber policy, and chambers as an organisation may need its own cover. See PI for barristers' chambers, agentic AI liability and where cyber and PI divide.
Apex arranges PI for barristers and chambers. A broker can map which losses from a chambers automation failure fall on members' BMIF cover and which need chambers-level or cyber cover. More on the AI at the Bar hub and in AI notetakers.
No, but it says agentic AI is likely to be high risk for most uses at the Bar and should be considered with absolute caution. Low-risk automation such as reminder emails may be acceptable with strict controls, and barristers remain responsible for what the system does.
The BSB says the barrister remains responsible for automated actions under rC20 and rC86.3.b. Heads of chambers also have management duties under rC87 and rC89, and Ayinde expects practical and effective measures from chambers leadership.
The BSB gives automated reminder emails as an example of low-risk automation that may be acceptable with strict controls. Check what client data the tool can see, who receives the messages and how errors are logged.
A client's claim against a barrister is usually within BMIF cover, subject to its terms. Chambers' own losses, disputes between members and first-party cyber costs are not required by the minimum terms and may need separate insurance.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
