FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Conveyancers and property lawyers
The CLC's AI and Technology Guidance sets eleven voluntary Principles for licensed conveyancers, which can count as mitigation if a mandatory rule is breached. It is the benchmark the CLC is likely to apply when an AI-assisted matter goes wrong.
Part of: AI in Conveyancers and property lawyers
In short
Published in October 2025, the CLC AI and Technology Guidance sets eleven Principles, from risk of harm to capability, each with good-practice prompts. It is not mandatory but must be read with the Code of Conduct, and following it may count in mitigation. Key prompts are to consider telling PII and cyber insurers before deployment, explain technology to clients in plain English, verify outputs, keep data in approved systems, get consent before training use and reflect time saved in billing. It does not cover deepfakes, AML or ID fraud.
The Council for Licensed Conveyancers, the statutory regulator of licensed conveyancers and CLC practices, published its AI and Technology Guidance in October 2025. The page was last modified on 16 October 2025. It is the CLC's main statement on AI and sits alongside older, broader technology material:
The guidance says plainly that compliance with it is not mandatory. It must be read with the mandatory Code of Conduct and the topic Codes, and the CLC says that following it may count as mitigation if a mandatory rule is breached. Its core position is that practices and lawyers stay responsible for decisions and advice whether or not technology assisted.
In practice, that makes the guidance the benchmark the CLC is likely to look at when an AI-assisted matter goes wrong. A practice that can show a risk assessment, a tool policy and human review is in a far better position than one that cannot. The only Code provision the guidance cites by number is Ethical Principle 6 (equality, diversity and inclusion), linked to the fairness Principle.
| Principle | Key good-practice prompts |
|---|---|
| 1. Risk of harm | Keep risk assessments; consider telling PII and cyber insurers before deployment. |
| 2. Security | Seek assurance the tool resists attack, misuse and unauthorised access; two-factor authentication, limited access, staff training. |
| 3. Robustness | Test typical use and edge cases; know how the tool could fail; contingency and escalation plans. |
| 4. Transparency | Explain to clients in plain English what technology is used, including automated profiling or risk scoring, and what data it processes. |
| 5. Explainability | Explain how outputs are reached and the level of human oversight; give clients clear routes to raise concerns. |
| 6. Data use, privacy and security | Comply with UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018; carry out impact assessments; train staff. |
| 7. Interoperability | Check secure data sharing with practice systems and wider conveyancing systems such as banks and HM Land Registry; consider sandbox testing. |
| 8. Risk and impact assessment | Proportionate, documented assessments before adoption and when risks change. |
| 9. Accountability | Human review; check outputs and sources; client data only in approved systems; time saved reflected in billable hours. |
| 10. Fairness and bias | Test for inbuilt bias before adoption and keep testing; act immediately on unfair outputs. |
| 11. Capability | Staff know the limits; policy on permitted tools, including public AI; supervise junior and support staff. |
The guidance adds that client data should not be used to train AI without client consent. It cites the first-instance judgment in R (Ayinde) v Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin) as a warning about unchecked AI output.
The guidance does not address deepfakes, AML or ID fraud. That gap matters in conveyancing, where synthetic identity and seller impersonation are live risks. Those issues fall under the CLC's fraud and cybercrime hub and the firm's existing obligations, covered in AI ID checks and deepfakes and AI source of funds checks.
Solicitor conveyancers answer to the SRA, whose Misuse of AI warning notice was published on 17 August 2026. The two documents agree on the fundamentals but differ in tone and status.
| CLC guidance | SRA warning notice | |
|---|---|---|
| Date | October 2025 | 17 August 2026 |
| Status | Not mandatory; may count in mitigation | The SRA will have regard to it; failing to consider it risks disciplinary action |
| Accountability | Lawyers stay responsible for decisions and advice | Use of AI does not diminish or transfer professional responsibilities |
| Confidentiality | Client consent before training use; data in approved systems | Safeguards, secure environment, no training without authorisation, limited retention |
| Insurance | Consider telling PII and cyber insurers before deployment | No specific insurance prompt |
| Billing | Reflect time saved in billing | Not addressed |
For the SRA side in detail, see the SRA AI warning notice explained. Both regulators also work together, with the LSB and ICO, on the Advisory AI Growth Lab, where conveyancers were named as eligible applicants.
Principle 1's prompt to consider telling PII and cyber insurers before deployment is a specific insurance prompt. It links to the CLC renewal cycle: under the CLC Minimum Terms, renewal proposals are due by 1 June. The CLC also notes that 2024 Annual Regulatory Return responses showed technology had no impact, or a beneficial impact, on premiums.
The CLC Minimum Terms contain no AI wording, so the guidance does not change what the policy covers. It does affect how a claim and any regulatory investigation look: a practice that followed the Principles can show the error happened despite reasonable controls. See CLC PI requirements and whether conveyancing PI covers AI mistakes.
Apex arranges PI for CLC practices and can help you present your AI tools to insurers in line with Principle 1. Start with AI in conveyancing or telling clients you use AI.
No. The CLC states that compliance is not mandatory. It must be read with the mandatory Code of Conduct and topic Codes, and following it may count as mitigation if a mandatory rule is breached, so practices have good reason to follow it.
Not as a rule. Principle 1 prompts practices to consider telling PII and cyber insurers before deploying technology. Doing so also helps meet the duty of fair presentation when the practice completes its renewal proposal.
No. The guidance does not address deepfakes, AML or ID fraud. Practices should rely on their existing AML and fraud controls and the CLC's fraud and cybercrime material for those risks.
Principle 9 includes a prompt to reflect time saved in billing. It is guidance rather than a rule, but practices should be able to explain how efficiency gains from AI show up in what clients pay.
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.
