FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Solicitors and law firms
AI notetakers can produce fuller attendance notes than most solicitors write, but an inaccurate AI record can undermine a firm's defence to a negligence claim. Attendance notes are often the key evidence of what advice was given.
Part of: AI in solicitors and law firms
In short
Many firms now record and transcribe client meetings and calls with AI, then generate summaries as attendance notes. The benefits are fuller records and time savings. The risks are mis-transcription, summaries that omit or distort advice, recording without proper notice, and client data processed by vendors on unsuitable terms. Code 6.3 covers confidentiality and UK GDPR requires appropriate processor terms. In a later negligence claim, a reliable contemporaneous note is often the firm's best defence under PI, so the AI record must be checked and kept.
Fee earners use AI tools to transcribe video calls, phone calls and in-person meetings, produce a summary of points discussed, list action items and file the result to the matter as an attendance note. Some tools also draft follow-up emails to the client. For busy practitioners this can mean better records than handwritten notes, provided the output is checked.
Many negligence claims turn on what the solicitor said. A client alleges they were never warned about a risk, and the firm relies on its attendance note. A contemporaneous, accurate note is persuasive evidence; a vague or wrong one can lose the argument. An AI summary that drops a caveat, or a transcript that mishears "not" as "now", can turn a defensible claim into a difficult one. The SRA's supervision guidance says AI outputs must be subject to human review, scrutiny and professional judgement, and Code 7.2 requires you to be able to justify your decisions and actions.
Recording a client meeting means processing personal data, often including special category data. Under UK GDPR the firm is usually the controller and the transcription vendor a processor, so a proper processor contract is needed. The SRA's warning notice sets the confidentiality standard for AI tools: contractual, technical and organisational safeguards, a secure environment, no access by unauthorised third parties, no training use unless explicitly authorised and no retention longer than necessary. Code 6.3 applies throughout.
Tell clients and other participants that a call is being recorded and transcribed, and why. The Law Society recommends agreeing with clients whether and how AI will be used on their matter. Be careful with third parties on calls, such as the other side's representatives, who may not have agreed.
Since 5 February 2026, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 provisions on automated decision-making have been in force. Transcription itself is not usually an automated decision, but firms using AI outputs to make decisions about individuals should be aware of the new rules.
Illustrative: a solicitor advises a client on a settlement offer by video call and warns that accepting it will end a related claim. The AI summary records the advice to accept but not the warning, and nobody checks it. Two years later the client sues, saying they were never told about the related claim. The raw transcript was deleted under the vendor's default retention setting, leaving only the incomplete summary.
The client's claim is a civil liability claim covered under the SRA minimum terms, which have no AI exclusion. PI does not usually depend on how the note was made, but the quality of the record affects whether the claim can be defended and at what cost. A data breach involving recordings may fall within a permitted cyber or data protection exclusion, with civil liability cover preserved; the response costs are usually a matter for a cyber policy. See cyber or PI after a solicitor data breach.
Apex arranges PI for solicitors and law firms. A broker can explain how your PI and cyber policies split liability for a recording or data incident. See the AI in law firms hub, AI-drafted advice letters, AI and witness statements and what to document about AI use.
It can be relevant evidence of what was said, but its weight depends on accuracy. A checked transcript or note made at the time is usually more persuasive than recollection. Keep the original recording or transcript where lawful, because a summary alone may be challenged.
You need a lawful basis under UK GDPR and should be transparent about recording. Professional guidance recommends agreeing with clients how AI will be used on their matter. Telling participants at the start of each call is good practice.
Usually the claim itself is covered civil liability, as the SRA minimum terms contain no AI exclusion. The problem is evidential: an inaccurate note makes the claim harder and more expensive to defend, so checking notes protects both the firm and its insurer.
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.
