FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Barristers
Public access barristers must consider whether a lay client relying on AI understands and can rely on that information, under rC123. Direct-access clients often have no solicitor to filter AI material, so counsel is the first professional to see it.
Part of: AI in Barristers
In short
Lay clients may arrive with AI-generated research, draft documents or chatbot advice. The BSB's AI guidance says that where a Public Access client seems to rely on AI, counsel should consider whether they understand the information and whether it is accurate, to decide whether a solicitor should be instructed. rC19 requires transparency where AI materially affects the service. Clear scope in the client care letter matters, because a litigant in person who mixes AI output with counsel's advice can later blur who said what. Claims by lay clients usually fall on counsel's BMIF cover.
Direct-access clients may bring a chatbot's summary of their legal position, an AI-drafted letter before claim, a list of cases they believe help them, or a draft witness statement. Some want counsel to "check" AI work rather than advise from scratch. The Legal Services Board's June 2026 research found binding standards for consumer AI legal tools "nearly nonexistent", and consumers said they wanted accuracy guarantees, human oversight and redress. Counsel may be the first person to test what the client has been told.
Under rC123, the BSB's AI guidance says that if you suspect a Public Access client is relying on information or advice from an AI system, you should consider whether the client understands it and whether it is accurate, to decide whether it is in their interests or the interests of justice to instruct a solicitor or other professional client. The guidance stresses this for direct-access clients because they "may not have other sources of advice or representation." rC19 requires transparency where AI materially affects the nature or scope of the service, CD2 requires acting in the client's best interests and CD1 means AI-sourced authorities from the client must be checked before use.
Some clients ask counsel to "sense check" a chatbot's advice for a modest fee rather than advise from scratch. That can seem efficient but it is risky: reviewing someone else's reasoning is rarely quicker than forming your own, and a client may treat a brief review as endorsement of the whole document. Decide whether the work can properly be done on that basis, and if not, say so and propose a scope that lets you advise properly.
Public access work turns on a clear statement of what counsel will and will not do. Where AI material is involved, the client care letter can record what the client has provided, that counsel is not adopting or verifying AI content outside the agreed scope, and which documents counsel will draft. If the client intends to act as a litigant in person, the letter can make clear that documents they later change, with or without AI, are not counsel's work. Accurate notes of conferences support this.
Illustrative: a direct-access client instructs counsel to review a statement of case they drafted with a chatbot. Counsel advises on two paragraphs within the agreed scope. The client then files a version that combines counsel's wording with new AI-generated allegations and cites two cases the client found online that do not exist. When the claim goes badly, the client says counsel approved the document. The Al-Haroun case in Ayinde, where a client generated non-existent citations that were relied on unchecked, shows how this can escalate.
A lay client's claim alleging negligent advice is usually handled under counsel's compulsory BMIF cover, which on the BSB minimum terms has a limit of at least £500,000 each and every claim, defence costs in addition, and no AI exclusion. The practical issue is evidence: whether counsel advised on the disputed passage at all. A well-drafted client care letter and contemporaneous notes are often the deciding factor. Fee-reduction awards by the Legal Ombudsman are a permitted exclusion under the minimum terms. See does BMIF cover AI mistakes and AI and written advice.
Apex arranges PI for barristers, including those doing public access work, and can review how your cover responds to lay client claims. More on the AI at the Bar hub and in AI and fake citations.
The BSB guidance says that where you suspect a Public Access client is relying on AI, consider whether they understand the information and whether it is accurate. That helps decide whether it is in their interests, or the interests of justice, for a solicitor or other professional client to be instructed.
You can, if it is within the agreed scope. Record in the client care letter exactly what you are reviewing and what you are not, and check any authorities or facts it contains against source material before you adopt them.
Counsel is responsible for their own advice and drafting, not for later changes made by the client. Proving which words were yours depends on keeping dated copies of drafts and clear notes of scope and advice.
rC19 requires transparency where AI materially affects the nature or scope of the service. Because direct-access clients may have no other adviser, it is sensible to explain your approach to AI in the client care letter.
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.
