FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Barristers
When a pupil or devil uses AI on work that goes out under another barrister's name, the barrister who adopts the work usually answers to the client and the court. Ayinde, which began with a pupil's grounds, also puts heads of chambers on notice.
Part of: AI in Barristers
In short
Devilling and pupillage depend on trust in other people's drafts, and AI changes what can go wrong in them. In Ayinde a pupil barrister settled grounds citing five fictitious cases, and the Divisional Court called on heads of chambers to take "practical and effective measures". Munir suggests a supervisor who misses a junior's false citations may be more culpable than one who misses their own. The BSB's AI guidance does not separately address pupil supervision; a joint BSB and Bar Council working group is scoping it. Usually the barrister who adopts the work and their BMIF cover respond to the client.
Pupils and junior barristers are often the heaviest users of AI in chambers: researching a point overnight, producing a first draft of a skeleton or advice, summarising a bundle for a senior, or preparing a note on the law. They may also be under the most time pressure and the least able to spot a plausible error. Devilled work then passes to a more senior barrister who may assume the research was done conventionally.
In Ayinde [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) the fictitious authorities appeared in judicial review grounds settled by a pupil barrister. Wasted costs of £2,000 were ordered against counsel and against the law centre, and counsel was referred to the BSB. At ¶9 the court said heads of chambers, as well as managing partners and regulators, must take "practical and effective measures", and that future Hamid hearings may look at whether leadership duties were met. At ¶82 it said guidance alone is insufficient. In Munir [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) the Upper Tribunal said a supervisor who fails to catch a junior's false citations is likely to be more culpable than one who fails to check their own work.
The BSB's AI guidance does not separately address pupil supervision, though it gives training pupils for cross-examination without case details as a low-risk use. rC20 makes professional judgement personal, and CD10, rC87 and rC89 require competent management of practice and chambers. The Bar Council's updated considerations say "ultimate responsibility for all legal work remains with the barrister" and note a joint Bar Council and BSB working group scoping training and supervision.
A practical response to ¶9 is a written chambers policy that covers which tools pupils and juniors may use, what may never be uploaded, how authorities must be verified, how a devil should flag AI use to the instructed barrister, and how pupil supervisors check AI-assisted work. Training matters as much as the document; the court in Ayinde was clear that guidance alone is not enough. See agentic AI in chambers for the systems side.
Pupils will use AI in practice, so pupillage is the place to learn how to verify it. Useful exercises include asking a tool for authority on a point and then checking every case it returns, comparing an AI summary of a judgment with the judgment itself, and identifying what an AI chronology left out. These build the habit the courts now expect, and they can be done with invented facts so that no client data is involved.
Illustrative: a busy junior devils a note on limitation to a newer member of chambers, who uses an AI tool and does not say so. The note cites one real case for the wrong proposition. The junior adopts the note in an advice to the client, who relies on it and lets a claim become time-barred. The client sues the junior.
The barrister instructed by the client, who adopts the devilled work, usually faces the client's claim and notifies it under their own BMIF cover; on the BSB minimum terms that is at least £500,000 each and every claim with no AI exclusion. Anyone holding a self-employed practising certificate must be a BMIF member, so a devil with such a certificate has their own cover and may face contribution arguments. Disputes between members of chambers are a permitted exclusion. See barristers' PI and BMIF and fake citations at the Bar.
Apex arranges PI for barristers and chambers and can explain how members' BMIF cover and any chambers policy respond when devilled work goes wrong. More on the AI at the Bar hub.
Usually, if you adopt the work and send it to the client or court under your name. rC20 makes professional judgement personal, and Ayinde and Munir show courts expect seniors and supervisors to check work produced by others.
At ¶9 the Divisional Court said heads of chambers must take practical and effective measures on AI misuse, and that future Hamid hearings may consider whether leadership duties were met. At ¶82 it said guidance alone is not enough.
Yes, it is sensible to require it. You need to know how research and drafting were produced to decide how much checking is needed before you adopt the work, and a chambers policy can make disclosure of AI use the default.
Not separately. It gives training pupils for cross-examination without case details as a low-risk example. The Bar Council's November 2025 considerations note a joint Bar Council and BSB working group scoping training and supervision.
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.
