Much of the public conversation about artificial intelligence is framed in extremes. We are told, often in the same breath, that AI will either radically transform professional life overnight or that it poses an existential threat to life as we know it. For the Bar, neither narrative feels particularly convincing right now. The structural and cultural realities of the profession play a significant role in shaping what is practical, proportionate and professionally responsible when it comes to new technology – and AI is no exception.

On the surface, the uptake of AI within chambers may appear cautious, even restrained. There is no single ‘firm strategy’ for technology adoption that can be imposed from the top down. Any shift in working practices depends on perceived professional benefit and, frankly, the appetite to give something new a go. Professional risk sits squarely with the individual practitioner as the data controller. Therefore, any technology that promises efficiency must also withstand scrutiny for safe use, especially where data protection is concerned. That inherent conservatism is not a flaw; it is a defining feature of practice at the Bar. If your chambers is adopting AI at a measured pace – you are probably in the right gear.

To interpret this measured approach as resistance or inertia would be a mistake. I have witnessed an emerging pattern of selective, highly targeted use of AI by barristers – often small in scope, but significant in impact. In a profession where time management, mental bandwidth and individual creativity are critical assets, even modest technological gains can be genuinely transformative. Optionality is key: AI tools that can be picked up, tested, adapted – or rejected – by individuals without forcing wholesale change.

The most successful uses of AI in chambers so far tend to share three characteristics. They are narrow in scope, well defined and low risk, and easy to integrate into existing ways of working. They do not replace legal judgement or core advocacy skills. For barristers, time is not only billable; it is cognitive. The ability to move efficiently between tasks – absorbing complex information, drafting, refining arguments – underpins both quality of work and personal sustainability. AI tools that support these transitions are proving particularly valuable.

For example, the use of AI to summarise long documents, extract key issues from papers, or generate neutral chronologies does not require delegation of judgement. The barrister remains fully responsible for accuracy and relevance, but begins from a clearer starting point. What might previously have taken an hour of skim reading can be reduced to a structured overview in minutes, freeing time and mental energy for analysis rather than orientation.

Similarly, in drafting, it’s clear the purpose of AI isn’t to produce final court-ready documents. Its value lies earlier in the process: helping to break the inertia of a blank page, test alternative formulations, or refine tone. For experienced practitioners, this is less about outsourcing skill and more about accelerating iteration. For juniors, it can provide a framework for learning – so long as outputs are critically interrogated rather than accepted at face value.

Another quietly high-value use of AI is that it can help time-pushed barristers make sense of the work they have done for billing purposes: explaining what was done, why it was necessary and how it maps to the fees billed. For inter partes and publicly funded matters, barristers are routinely required to prepare summaries to justify fees, and the narrative matters as much as the numbers. AI can help by producing a firstdraft account that is coherent, proportionate and aligned with the way barristers are typically asked to evidence time, articulating work that was done more clearly and consistently, with the practitioner checking accuracy and exercising judgement throughout.

These may not seem dramatic examples of AI transforming the legal profession nor verify sensationalist narratives such as ‘lawyers will be replaced by plumbers!’* But cumulatively, the impact these uses of AI have to a barrister’s practice do matter.

Barristers who use AI well tend to do so as an intellectual sparring partner rather than a substitute. They test arguments, explore counterpositions or stress-test assumptions. In doing so, they can sharpen – not dilute – their own thinking. The tool does not decide what is persuasive, but it can help surface blind spots or prompt alternative approaches that might otherwise have been overlooked under time pressure.

This kind of use aligns closely with the independence of practice at the Bar. The barrister remains firmly ‘in the loop’, exercising professional judgement at every stage. AI becomes part of the thinking process, not a proxy for it.

The professional obligations borne by barristers – duties to the court, to clients, to confidentiality – are non-negotiable. Any technology that threatens to undermine them cannot be justified by efficiency gains alone.

What is notable, however, is how quickly the conversation has matured. The early focus on whether AI should be used at all has given way to more nuanced questions: Where can it be used safely? Under what controls? With what level of supervision?

Many chambers, including my own, have responded by articulating clear principles rather than exhaustive rulebooks. Human oversight, verification of outputs, caution around confidential data and a refusal to delegate judgement are emerging as shared norms. This principles-based approach mirrors the way professional ethics operate more broadly at the Bar, and it allows space for innovation without abandoning responsibility. Importantly, it also reinforces that safe AI use is not just a technical issue but a professional skill. Knowing when not to rely on AI is as important as knowing how to deploy it.

Technology adoption is often framed as a technical challenge, but at the Bar, it is also fundamentally cultural. Peer influence and informal knowledge-sharing matters. Seeing a respected colleague explain how a tool has saved them time on a complex case where the workflow and real-life scenario and obstacles resonate is often more persuasive than any formal training session. As a result, change is happening laterally rather than hierarchically. Small groups experiment, share insights, and adapt tools to their own practices. Over time, what was once novel becomes normalised – not because it was mandated, but because it proved useful.

This cultural dynamic also explains why progress can appear slow from the outside. There is no single tipping point, no dramatic announcement. Instead, there is gradual diffusion. What looks like restraint is often careful calibration.

For chambers thinking about the future, the lesson is not to chase scale for its own sake. The goal is not maximal adoption, but meaningful adoption. That requires investment in supporting experimentation and creating spaces where questions – particularly about risk – can be raised without stigma.

It also means recognising that the most valuable uses of AI for barristers right now may not fulfil the lust of a general AI podcast soundbite. ‘Valuable’ is a subjective term depending on where you are sitting. Therefore, the most valuable general use of AI for a barrister may more likely be in backstage tasks right now, quietly improving the quality of working life. In a profession where burnout and time pressure are real concerns, that matters.

AI may not remake the Bar overnight but used with precision and professional judgement, it can reshape how many barristers manage their time, structure their thinking and sustain their practice. 

In Counsel online – read more by Julie Ahadi on AI at the Bar:

‘Why it’s time to mobilise on AI’, April 2025

‘Living up to the hype? AI in chambers’, November 2024

Risk-based approach – Bar regulator publishes guidance on use of AI:

The Bar Standards Board has published Guidance on the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Other Technologies.

Valid from 18 May 2026, the guidance explains how existing duties in the BSB Handbook apply and advises barristers and chambers to take a risk-based approach before procuring, adopting and using AI technologies. It addresses the competence and practice management responsibilities relating to AI adoption as well as responsibilities at the immediate point of use – and use by others.

The Bar Council, which is collaborating with the BSB in a joint technology and innovation working group, welcomed the regulator’s guidance as a complement to its own publication: Considerations when using ChatGPT and genAI software based on large language models (first published in April 2024, last updated in November 2025).

Reference:

* ... as the higher earners as AI disrupts career hierarchies – @TheDiaryOfACEO viral clip