FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Chartered legal executives
CILEX lawyers may use AI, but CILEx Regulation treats it as a tool and holds the lawyer responsible for every decision and output. That matters because chartered legal executives handle litigation, probate, family and advocacy work where an unchecked AI error reaches clients and courts directly.
Part of: AI in Chartered legal executives
In short
CILEx Regulation (CRL) has no AI-specific rules or guidance. Its position page, first published in July 2024 and updated in September 2025, says regulation broadly continues as now and the lawyer remains the decision-maker. The CILEx Code of Conduct therefore does the work: outcome 1.2 on misleading the court, 5.1 to 5.4 on competence, 5.12 on confidentiality and 8.2 to 8.4 on supervision. CILEX lawyers in SRA firms are also covered by the SRA's August 2026 Misuse of AI warning notice. CRL-authorised entities must hold at least £2m of PI cover with a qualifying insurer, and the policy wording cannot cut that minimum down.
Chartered legal executives and CILEX practitioners work in CRL-authorised entities, in SRA-regulated firms and in-house. AI now appears across that work: generative AI chatbots that draft letters and first-cut pleadings, tools that summarise bank statements, medical records or disclosure, research assistants that suggest authorities, transcription for attendance notes, and document automation for estate accounts, lasting powers of attorney and bulk debt claims.
The attraction is speed on routine, document-heavy tasks. The difficulty is that much CILEX work is specialist and deadline-driven, so an error in a schedule of loss, a missed estate asset or an invented case can cause real loss before anyone notices. CRL itself lists the risks it is watching: displaced support roles, data verification, transparency, accountability and the balance between human judgement and AI.
CRL's web page Artificial Intelligence and regulation was first published on 16 July 2024 and last modified on 16 September 2025. It is a position statement, not guidance or rules, and as at October 2026 CRL has published no AI-specific guidance, rule or consultation. Its short-term view is that regulation will broadly continue as now: firms and lawyers use AI as a tool, remain responsible for their decisions and actions, and the lawyer remains the decision-maker, regulated individually and through the firm. CRL says regulation should be proportionate and should enable technology.
CRL has said it will review its standards, codes and guidance on AI, consider training needs and student use of AI in assessments, and work with other regulators. Its 2026 corporate plan, as reported in the trade press, puts helping legal executives gain litigation rights after Mazur first and does not mention AI. Our page on CILEx Regulation's approach to AI sets this out in detail, and AI-assisted litigation after Mazur covers the authorisation point.
Because CRL has not written AI rules, the CILEx Code of Conduct (effective 13 August 2019) applies to AI-assisted work as it does to any other. These outcomes are the most relevant to AI use:
| Outcome | What it requires | AI link |
|---|---|---|
| 1.2 | Do not knowingly or recklessly allow the court to be misled | Unchecked AI citations and figures |
| 3.2 | Do not intentionally mislead anyone | Overstated letters and correspondence |
| 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 | Current knowledge; act only within competence | Relying on AI in an unfamiliar area |
| 5.7, 5.8 | Agree terms; give clear, accurate information | AI client care letters and estimates |
| 5.12 | Keep client affairs confidential | Uploading client data to public tools |
| 8.2 to 8.4 | Supervise delegated work; competent people check it | Reviewing AI-assisted work by juniors |
Many chartered legal executives are employed by solicitor firms. There, the SRA's Misuse of AI warning notice of 17 August 2026 and the AI section added to its supervision guidance on 12 June 2026 bind the firm, including how it supervises non-solicitor fee earners. The notice says AI has no separate legal personality, that supervisors stay accountable for AI-assisted work, and that client information should only go into AI tools with proper safeguards. See CILEX lawyers using AI in SRA firms and the SRA warning notice explained.
In Ayinde and Al-Haroun [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) the Divisional Court said at paragraphs 7 to 8 that every lawyer must check AI research against authoritative sources, and at paragraph 9 that leaders must take practical and effective measures. In Munir [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) fake authorities in grounds drafted by a junior caseworker led to the referral of the signing COLP, and the tribunal said supervisors who miss juniors' false citations may be more culpable. These apply equally to CILEX advocates and litigators; see AI research for CILEX advocates and immigration casework after Munir.
CRL-authorised entities must hold PI under the CILEx Professional Indemnity Insurance Rules before practising. The minimum is £2 million, set through the Qualifying Insurers Agreement, and applies regardless of the actual policy wording, so liability cannot be excluded or limited below £2m. Qualifying insurers must offer the CILEx Minimum Wording. Cover above £2m is top-up on the insurer's own terms. CRL has said nothing specific about AI and PI. CILEX lawyers employed in SRA firms are usually covered by the firm's policy under the SRA minimum terms, which contain no AI exclusion. Regulatory fines are usually uninsured. Read does CILEX PI cover AI mistakes?, the CILEX PI guide and PI for AI-using professionals.
Apex arranges PI for chartered legal executives and CILEX practitioner firms. A broker can review your cover, any top-up layer terms and how your policy treats AI-assisted work, and help you describe your AI controls at renewal. See also does PI cover AI mistakes?.
No. CRL's position page says regulation broadly continues as now, AI is a tool, and the lawyer remains responsible for decisions and actions. CRL has published no AI-specific rule or guidance as at October 2026, though it has said it will review its standards, codes and guidance on AI.
The most relevant are outcome 1.2 (not misleading the court), 3.2 (not misleading anyone), 5.1 to 5.4 (competence), 5.12 (confidentiality) and 8.2 to 8.4 (supervision). They apply to AI-assisted work in exactly the same way as to work done by hand.
The £2m minimum set through the Qualifying Insurers Agreement applies regardless of the policy wording, and liability cannot be excluded or limited below it. A negligence claim from AI-assisted work would usually be treated like any other, subject to the policy terms. Top-up layers above £2m can carry different terms.
Both. You remain bound by the CILEx Code, and the firm must meet SRA standards, including the August 2026 Misuse of AI warning notice and the supervision guidance. The firm's PI under the SRA minimum terms usually covers your work.
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.
