The Legal AI Brief

Microsoft made Copilot for legal generally available on 15 October 2026 with more than twenty legal skills in Word and Cowork, and its admin guidance says the legal plugin in Word is enabled by default for every commercial Microsoft 365 Copilot subscriber. A firm that bought Copilot as an office assistant now holds a contract review tool nobody in the firm chose. What that means for a smaller firm's decision, its SharePoint permissions, the supervision of tracked changes that look like a colleague's, and its playbook. Also in this episode, a LexisNexis survey on who owns AI governance, the AI board at Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, and from the bench the Master of the Rolls at Legal Geek on clients who ask the machine first and judges who stop checking.

The Upper Tribunal has published a decision in which a paralegal drafted the grounds of appeal and the skeleton argument with ChatGPT, the grounds cited cases that do not exist and quoted a first-tier judge on things he never said, and the firm filed the skeleton after the tribunal had pointed out the misquotation. Two people reported themselves to the SRA and the Home Office was invited to apply for wasted costs. What that means for a smaller firm's supervision of juniors, for the moment a court says a document is wrong, for the tools that may hold client material, and for the evidence clients supply. Also in this episode, the ICO's changes from ten AI developers and its call for evidence on AI agents, the Law Commission's product liability proposals for AI, Co-op Legal Services scoring client calls with AI, and from the bench the judiciary's position statement on its own use of AI.

Sir Colin Birss, who becomes Master of the Rolls on 1 November, told the International Conference of Legal Regulators that litigants in person using AI might be held to about five pages when they set out their case. He accepted that AI helps people without lawyers and reminded the profession that it must remember it is not trusting the tool. What that means for a smaller firm answering long machine drafted papers, for the documents it files itself, and for fixed fee help to people acting in person. Also in this episode, the Legal Ombudsman's research on AI written complaints, the SRA's pause on the compliance officer rules, the first Online Procedure Rules service, and the Court of Appeal on blind eye knowledge.

Sir Robert Buckland, Lord Chancellor from 2019 to 2021, told the Costs Law Reports conference on 24 September that the courts need no new rule for AI generated filings, because the costs regime already gives them the answer. He argued against blanket sanctions on litigants in person and allowed lawyers no excuse. What that means for a smaller firm answering machine drafted material, and for the documents it files itself. Also in this episode, the Southwark ruling letting counsel record a trial, the close of the AI Growth Lab, and the High Court's decision that the SRA cannot compel production of a client's privileged documents.

The Online Procedure Rules 2026 came into force on 7 September, the first procedural code in England and Wales written for a screen rather than adapted from paper. For now they reach specified possession claims only. What matters to every firm is the rule committee's next piece of work, a voluntary code of practice with standards for the responsible and ethical use of AI across digital justice services. Also in this episode, the JUSTICE warning on AI transcription in family proceedings, the SRA's contested change to who may hold the compliance officer roles, and a venture fund backed by fifty general counsel.

One in six people with a legal problem now consult an AI chatbot about it, and among the under twenty fives it is better than one in four. What research published on 1 September by JUSTICE and the Administrative Fairness Lab means for a firm of two to twenty fee earners, along with the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal strike off of 4 September, the AI Growth Lab deadline of 27 September and the first wave of EU AI Act inspections.