FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Solicitors and law firms
Solicitors should not put client material into public AI tools, because the Upper Tribunal and the SRA warn this may breach confidentiality and waive privilege. Approved tools with proper contractual, technical and organisational safeguards are a different matter.
Part of: AI in solicitors and law firms
In short
In Munir [2026] UKUT 81 the Upper Tribunal said uploading client letters or Home Office decisions to a public AI chatbot puts them in the public domain, breaching confidentiality and waiving privilege, and that firms should consider reporting to the regulator and the ICO. The SRA's August 2026 notice sets the safeguards for any AI use of client data. The Chancellor of the High Court has said secure tools are unlikely to affect privilege. A data leak may engage both cyber and PI cover: the SRA minimum terms allow cyber and data protection exclusions but preserve civil liability cover.
The distinction that matters is whether the tool keeps information confidential. Public generative AI chatbots used without a vendor contract may store inputs, use them for training and allow staff at the provider to see them. Enterprise tools procured with contractual terms can keep data in a secure environment and exclude training. The Law Society advises generally not putting confidential information into generative AI tools, especially free tools with no vendor relationship.
The SRA's Misuse of AI warning notice says client information should only go into AI with contractual, technical and organisational safeguards. The data must stay in a secure environment, be inaccessible to unauthorised third parties, not be used for training unless explicitly authorised and not be kept longer than necessary.
In UK and R (Munir) v SSHD [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), the Upper Tribunal said at paragraph 21 that uploading client letters or decisions to a public AI chatbot puts them in the public domain, breaching confidentiality and waiving privilege. It said firms should consider reporting such uploads to the regulator and the ICO, and noted closed enterprise tools as an alternative.
The Chancellor of the High Court's speech of 22 April 2026 explained that confidentiality is a prerequisite for privilege. Public AI tools appear not to be confidential; with secure tools it is "hard to see" any impact on privilege. The speech framed questions rather than deciding them, so the law is still developing.
Code 6.3 (and Code for Firms 6.3) requires you to keep client affairs confidential. Code for Firms 2.1 requires effective governance, systems and controls, including AI risk. Where personal data has been exposed, UK GDPR generally requires the firm to notify the ICO within 72 hours of becoming aware of a reportable breach, and to tell affected individuals where the risk to them is high. Consider whether the SRA needs to be told, and whether the client must be informed.
Illustrative: a paralegal pastes a client's medical report and a privileged advice note into a free AI chatbot to produce a summary. A colleague notices later. The firm cannot confirm what the provider retained. It must assess whether to notify the ICO and the client, consider whether privilege in the advice note is now at risk, and deal with the client's complaint and potential claim.
The SRA minimum terms let insurers exclude cyber acts, computer system failure and breach of data protection law, but cover for civil liability and defence costs must be preserved. In practice, a client's civil claim for loss caused by the leak (for example, lost advantage in litigation through waived privilege) is usually within PI, while first-party costs such as breach response, forensic investigation and notification usually sit with a cyber policy, if the firm has one. ICO fines are generally a matter for regulators rather than PI. See cyber or PI after a solicitor data breach, a data breach and privilege scenario and cyber insurance for solicitors.
Apex arranges PI and cyber insurance for solicitors and law firms. A broker can show how your policies split a data incident between them. See the AI in law firms hub, SRA AI warning notice explained, AI e-disclosure and Does solicitors' PI cover AI mistakes?.
It may. The Upper Tribunal in Munir said uploading client documents to a public AI tool puts them in the public domain and waives privilege. The Chancellor of the High Court has said confidentiality is a prerequisite for privilege, though the question has not been finally decided.
Yes, with safeguards. The SRA expects contractual, technical and organisational protections: a secure environment, no unauthorised access, no training use unless explicitly authorised and limited retention. The Chancellor suggested secure tools are unlikely to affect privilege.
Possibly. If personal data was exposed and the breach is reportable, UK GDPR generally requires notification within 72 hours. Munir said firms should consider reporting to the regulator and the ICO. Take advice quickly and record your assessment.
Often both, in different ways. The SRA minimum terms preserve civil liability cover even where cyber and data protection exclusions apply, so client claims usually sit with PI. Breach response costs usually sit with a cyber policy.
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.
