FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Chartered legal executives
AI can draft letters of claim and negotiation correspondence quickly, but a letter that overstates the law or facts can breach the CILEx Code and damage the client's case. Correspondence is where AI may be used casually and checked least.
Part of: AI in Chartered legal executives
In short
Generative AI chatbots produce confident, polished letters. That confidence is the risk: an AI letter of claim may overstate the legal basis, invent a statutory duty, misquote a contract or threaten steps the client has not authorised. Outcome 3.2 of the CILEx Code forbids intentionally misleading anyone, and outcomes 5.1 to 5.5 require competence and acting on instructions. Pasting privileged material into a public tool risks confidentiality and privilege under outcome 5.12. Complaints about misleading correspondence are conduct matters; client claims for resulting loss are usually handled under PI, subject to the policy terms.
CILEX fee earners use generative AI chatbots to draft letters of claim and responses, without prejudice proposals, chasers and summaries of the other side's position. Some paste in the other side's letter and ask for a reply. Others use AI to adjust tone, shorten long letters or translate. Because correspondence feels lower risk than a court document, it often goes out with lighter review.
CRL's AI position is that the lawyer remains responsible for decisions and actions. Under the CILEx Code of Conduct:
AI tools tend to write with certainty. A draft may describe a weak claim as clear-cut, cite a statutory provision that does not apply, or attribute a term to a contract that is not there. Asked to sound firm, it may threaten proceedings, injunctions or reports to third parties the client never authorised. Each of these can mislead the recipient, provoke a complaint and weaken the client's credibility later. Read every AI letter as if it will be shown to a judge, because it may be.
Asking a public AI tool to respond to a letter often means pasting in privileged advice, the client's instructions and settlement limits. In Munir the Upper Tribunal said uploading client documents to a public chatbot puts them in the public domain, breaching confidentiality and waiving privilege. The Chancellor of the High Court, in a speech on privilege in the age of AI on 22 April 2026, said public AI tools appear not to be confidential, while with secure tools it is hard to see any impact on privilege. The speech framed questions rather than deciding them, but the direction is clear.
Illustrative: a fee earner asks a generative AI chatbot to draft a letter of claim for a client in a supply dispute. The draft says the defendant is in breach of an implied term that does not apply to the contract, and threatens a winding-up petition the client never mentioned. The defendant's solicitors reply pointing out both errors and complain about the threat. The client's negotiating position is weakened, and the conduct of the correspondence may be relied on later when costs are decided.
A complaint that a letter was misleading is primarily a conduct issue, and regulatory sanctions are usually uninsured. If the client suffers loss, such as a weaker settlement or adverse costs, a negligence claim would usually be considered under the policy, subject to its terms; the CILEX £2m minimum applies regardless of wording for CRL-authorised entities. Third-party claims by the recipient are less common and depend on the circumstances. See does PI cover AI mistakes?.
Apex arranges PI for chartered legal executives and CILEX firms, and a broker can review how your policy treats AI-assisted correspondence. See the AI for CILEX lawyers hub, AI in debt recovery and small claims, AI client care letters and costs estimates and AI-assisted litigation after Mazur.
Yes, once you have checked it. You sign it and are responsible for it. Outcome 3.2 forbids intentionally misleading anyone, so every legal and factual statement should be verified and every threatened step confirmed with the client.
The other side's open letter is not privileged, but prompts often include your advice and the client's instructions. Putting those into a public tool risks breaching confidentiality and waiving privilege, as the Upper Tribunal noted in Munir.
A regulatory complaint is a conduct matter and fines are usually uninsured. If a client suffers financial loss because of the letter, a negligence claim would usually be considered under the PI policy, subject to its terms.
For letters of claim, settlement proposals and anything that states the client's legal position, yes. Outcomes 8.2 and 8.4 require delegated work to be supervised and checked by competent people, and correspondence often ends up in front of a judge.
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.
