Aipedia: Chartered legal executives

CILEx Regulation's approach to AI explained

Aipedia, by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-30

CILEx Regulation has issued no AI rules or guidance: it treats AI as a tool and holds the CILEX lawyer responsible for decisions and actions. For CILEX lawyers working in solicitor firms, the SRA's August 2026 warning notice adds firm-level expectations on top.

Part of: AI in Chartered legal executives

In short

CRL's only AI publication is a position page, first published on 16 July 2024 and last modified on 16 September 2025. It says regulation will broadly continue as now, that the lawyer remains the decision-maker, and that regulation should be proportionate and enable technology. CRL plans to review its standards, codes and guidance on AI but had published nothing further by October 2026. Meanwhile the 2019 CILEx Code of Conduct, especially principles 1, 5 and 8, governs AI use. CILEX lawyers in SRA firms must also work within the SRA's Misuse of AI warning notice and supervision guidance.

What CRL has published

CILEx Regulation (CRL) regulates CILEX members, CILEX practitioners and CRL-authorised entities under delegation from CILEX, the approved regulator. Its web page Artificial Intelligence and regulation was first published on 16 July 2024 and last modified on 16 September 2025. It is a position page rather than formal guidance. Its main points are:

in the short term, regulation will broadly continue as it does now;
firms and lawyers use AI as a tool and remain responsible for their decisions and actions;
the lawyer remains the decision-maker and is regulated individually, through the firm, or both;
regulation should be proportionate and should enable technology.

The page identifies the risks CRL is watching: displaced support roles, data verification, transparency, accountability, and balancing human judgement with AI. Supporting material includes a CRL webinar, "Artificial Intelligence: Risks and Opportunities" (15 July 2024), and a CRL article on the impact of AI in the CILEX Journal (Summer 2024).

What CRL has not published

As at October 2026 CRL has published no AI-specific guidance, statement, rule or consultation. The position page lists plans instead: to inform the CILEX community, consider student use of AI in assessments, review its standards, codes and guidance on AI, consider training needs, explore AI in its own operations and collaborate with other regulators. None of these has yet produced a published output.

CRL's 2026 corporate plan, launched on 19 December 2025 and reported by Solicitors Journal, makes helping legal executives gain litigation rights after Mazur its first priority, alongside faster enforcement and a review of the Enforcement Rules. As reported, it does not mention AI. That matters for AI-assisted court work: see AI-assisted litigation after Mazur.

How the Code applies instead

Without AI rules, the CILEx Code of Conduct, effective 13 August 2019, carries the weight. Three of its nine principles are most directly engaged by AI use:

Principle 1, rule of law and impartial justice. Outcome 1.2: do not knowingly or recklessly allow the court to be misled. A fabricated AI citation put before a court engages this directly.
Principle 5, competence, best interests and confidentiality. Outcome 5.1 (keep knowledge current and sufficiently deep), 5.3 and 5.4 (act only within competence), 5.8 (clear, accurate information) and 5.12 (keep client affairs confidential unless the law or Code requires disclosure or the client explicitly authorises it).
Principle 8, governance and risk management. Outcome 8.2 (supervise delegated tasks while staying accountable), 8.3 (those doing work are qualified or authorised) and 8.4 (client matters are supervised and checked by competent people).

Principle 3 also matters: outcome 3.2 says do not intentionally mislead anyone, which covers AI-drafted correspondence.

The SRA position for CILEX lawyers in SRA firms

Many chartered legal executives work in SRA-regulated firms, which must meet SRA firm-level rules on supervision. The SRA's Misuse of AI warning notice of 17 August 2026 applies to all SRA-regulated firms and individuals, and the SRA says it will have regard to it. It focuses on inaccurate court documents and on client confidentiality, says AI has no separate legal personality, and holds supervisors accountable for AI-assisted work by juniors and unauthorised staff. The SRA's supervision guidance, updated on 12 June 2026, says AI outputs must be subject to appropriate human review and that an authorised individual must keep ultimate responsibility. The SRA reported 42 reports of potential AI misuse between July 2025 and July 2026. See CILEX lawyers using AI in SRA firms.

The two approaches compared

Document	Date	Status	Key point
CRL: Artificial Intelligence and regulation	16 Jul 2024, updated 16 Sep 2025	Position page	AI is a tool; the lawyer decides and is responsible
CILEx Code of Conduct	Effective 13 Aug 2019	Binding on CILEX lawyers	Outcomes 1.2, 5.12 and 8.2 to 8.4 apply to AI use
SRA Misuse of AI warning notice	17 Aug 2026	Warning notice the SRA will have regard to	Verify every authority; protect confidential data
SRA supervision guidance, AI section	12 Jun 2026	Guidance	Human review of AI outputs; authorised person responsible
LSB research on consumer AI legal tools	Jun 2026	Research	Binding standards scarce; consumers want five safeguards

The Legal Services Board research found consumers want accuracy, informed consent before consequential action, human oversight, redress and data protection. That is a useful checklist while CRL's review is pending.

What it means in practice

The absence of AI rules does not mean the absence of standards. In practice CRL expects the same things the courts and the SRA do: check every authority against an authoritative source, as the Divisional Court said in Ayinde at paragraphs 7 to 8; keep client data out of public tools; and make sure whoever supervises AI-assisted work is competent to check it. A CILEX practitioner firm can show this with a written AI policy, a list of approved tools, a sign-off step for AI-assisted documents and a record of who checked what. See AI research for CILEX advocates.

What it means for PI

CRL has made no statement on AI and PI. The compulsory £2m minimum, set through the Qualifying Insurers Agreement, applies regardless of the actual wording, so a qualifying insurer cannot exclude or limit liability below that figure. Cover above £2m is top-up and may carry AI wording. For CILEX lawyers employed in SRA firms, the firm's policy under the SRA minimum terms has a closed list of exclusions that does not refer to AI. See does CILEX PI cover AI mistakes?, CILEx Regulation PI requirements and the AI for CILEX lawyers hub.

Sources

Frequently asked

Is CRL's AI page binding guidance?

No. It is a position page describing CRL's approach and plans. The binding standards are in the CILEx Code of Conduct, which applies to AI-assisted work as to any other. CRL has said it will review its standards, codes and guidance on AI.

Does the SRA warning notice apply to CILEX lawyers?

It applies to SRA-regulated firms and individuals. If you work in an SRA firm, the firm must meet it, including in how it supervises you, and SRA firm rules on supervision apply to your work there. Your own CILEx Code duties continue alongside.

Has CRL disciplined anyone for AI misuse?

No CRL disciplinary decision involving AI has been verified as at October 2026. Courts have referred lawyers to their regulators in AI citation cases such as Ayinde and Munir, and those decisions apply equally to CILEX lawyers conducting litigation or advocacy.

Check your PI covers how you use AI

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 callback

Apex 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.