Unapproved AI use in UK law firms exposed after landmark ruling – Access Legal
New data from Access Legal reveals 59% of fee earners admit to using unapproved AI tools for client work
New research from Access Legal has found that 59% of UK fee earners – solicitors, legal executives, and paralegals – admit to using unapproved AI applications, like the free version of ChatGPT, for client work.
The data arrives weeks after the Upper Tribunal’s landmark decision in Munir v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC) confirmed that doing so permanently waives legal professional privilege and breaches client confidentiality.
The findings were gathered on behalf of Access Legal by independent research firm Censuswide from 200 UK legal professionals in April 2026, including 100 firm leaders and 100 practitioners. They expose a disconnect that has serious regulatory consequences. While 59% of fee earners admit to the practice, 68% of law firm leaders say they have full visibility of AI use at their firm and believe they face ‘zero risk’ of unapproved AI use. The Tribunal was explicit that conduct of this kind warrants referral to the SRA and must in any event be reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
That gap goes far beyond an internal communications challenge. Under the SRA Code of Conduct, firm leaders have a direct duty to supervise. A leader who believes their firm has zero exposure, while fee earners are actively using tools that the Tribunal has now ruled waive privilege, is in breach of that duty. The Munir ruling has made the practice of what is known as ‘Shadow AI’ impossible to ignore.
Andrew Stevens, General Manager at Access Legal, said: “What has surprised us is the sheer volume of legal professionals who are using unapproved AI tools and the fact the research strongly indicates a significant portion of leaders are unaware. Everyone understands that practitioners look for faster ways to work —but following Munir, the consequences of reaching for the wrong tool are no longer theoretical, they are regulatory, permanent, and well-documented.”
The scale of the problem is significant. 71% of paralegals and 57% of solicitors admit to using unapproved AI to keep up with workload demands. And the drive to use these tools is not going away — half of all fee earners say they want AI built natively into their case management system, yet only 25% of firms currently have that in place. The gap between what practitioners need and what firms are providing, is part of what is driving them towards unapproved alternatives.
For firm leaders, the Munir ruling means the question is no longer whether Shadow AI use is happening. Access Legal’s research suggests it almost certainly is. The question is whether leaders know about it — and the responses suggest they do not.
Critically, the Tribunal did not rule that AI has no place in legal practice — it drew a clear distinction between open-source, public tools and closed, enterprise-grade environments where data remains within the firm’s control, going as far as citing named enterprise tools as examples of compliant alternatives.
Andrew added: “Firms that want to get ahead of this need to act on two fronts. The first is technology. Giving their people approved, secure tools that meet the demands of the job removes the incentive to go elsewhere. The second is culture and supervision. Having open conversations at every level about what people are using and why, and putting clear oversight in place. Firms that do both are in a far stronger position. Firms that do neither are exposed in a way that, post-Munir, they can no longer afford to be.”
The commercial pressure to use AI is only adding to the challenge. Separate research carried out at the end of 2025 by Access Legal found that 50% of clients now expect AI to be involved in their case, rising to 58% among clients under 35. For fee earners working without approved tools that meet that expectation, the temptation to reach for unapproved alternatives is clear. The Munir ruling does not ask firms to turn their back on AI, it asks them to use it responsibly. For those that don’t, the consequences are permanent and well-documented.
Access Legal’s AI risk hub provides further guidance and practical tools for firms looking to take action on Shadow AI.
