By Marialuisa Taddia
·
Listen to article
Law360, London (October 9, 2026, 5:30 PM BST) -- The
Solicitors Regulation Authority has said that it wants to update its competence standards to reflect the growing use of technology and artificial intelligence, amid growing concern over AI hallucinations in legal research and court filings.
The SRA said it wants to update its competence standards for technology and artificial intelligence amid growing concern over AI hallucinations in legal research. (iStock.com/Ole_CNX)
The SRA stopped short of creating a stand-alone technology and AI competency. Instead, it is proposing to incorporate technology-linked skills and responsibilities into existing requirements covering how solicitors exercise professional judgment, carry out legal work and supervise staff. Those changes would include clarifying that solicitors who supervise or manage others are responsible for the use of AI in legal work, and requiring them to address the risk of AI hallucinations in legal research, drafting and court filings.
"Every day, people and businesses place their trust in solicitors, relying on them to provide expert advice, protect their interests, uphold their rights and help them navigate important decisions and challenges," Beth Black, the SRA's director of education and training, said in a statement on Thursday. "They should be confident that the solicitors they turn to have the knowledge, skills and professional judgment to provide a competent service."
Black described the statement of solicitor competence, first introduced in 2015, as "an important foundation for that confidence."
"It sets out the standards expected of solicitors and provides a clear, shared understanding of what competent practice looks like across the profession," she added.
AI and the use of technology are "rapidly transforming" the legal profession in England and Wales and internationally, from legal research and document drafting to contract review, due diligence and case outcome prediction, the SRA said in its consultation document. It also pointed to its authorization of Garfield AI, the first AI-driven regulated law firm in England and Wales.
But recent cases have highlighted how lawyers' misuse of AI can go wrong. In September, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck off an overseas lawyer for repeatedly using AI to generate inaccurate quotations and citations while representing himself before the tribunal.
Earlier in 2026, Pinsent Masons LLP referred itself to the SRA after admitting that one of its junior lawyers used AI to generate fictitious legal authorities in documents sent to the court.
The SRA said that it developed its proposals following feedback from almost 150 solicitors, law firms, educators, representative bodies and academics.
It said that "AI was a key theme throughout the focus groups."
But the SRA is also proposing changes to its competency requirements in other areas such as health, well-being and professional ethics, citing "the need for a greater focus on ethics and professional conduct in light of recent concerns about the ethical behavior of some solicitors and firms."
In recent years, the profession has been engulfed in a series of scandals, from the Post Office Horizon litigation to the collapse of Axiom Ince Ltd.
The ethics updates would require solicitors to demonstrate that they can navigate competing ethical obligations and recognize when to raise concerns about ethical issues or misconduct.
The SRA is also proposing changes to the "functioning legal knowledge" element of the solicitors' qualifying examination, which tests candidates' ability to apply fundamental legal principles to real-world client scenarios.
The regulator said the proposed changes would clarify existing content and add or remove some topics covered by the assessment.
The consultation closes on Dec. 3. The SRA said it will engage with the profession throughout the process, with the revised competence statement and functioning legal knowledge requirements set to be published in April and come into force in September.
Black said that she wanted "to hear a wide range of views on the proposed changes so that the final framework remains clear, robust and fit for the future."
--Editing by Adam LoBelia.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.