SRA’s competence review puts AI supervision inside everyday legal work

The brief

The SRA’s consultation on solicitor competence proposes clearer references to AI, technology and supervision within legal practice. It does not propose a standalone technology competence or a change to the regulator’s rules. Responses close on 3 December 2026. Source: SRA consultation.

For a law firm, the useful question is whether a reviewer can explain how an AI-assisted document became approved advice. Our take is to record the source checked, the material correction and the person who authorised the final version. Training attendance alone cannot demonstrate that a particular output was examined. A short exercise using a fictional file can reveal whether the firm’s supervision process works at the moment a document is about to leave.

The full record

Published on 8 October, the review covers the Statement of Solicitor Competence and Functioning Legal Knowledge. The SRA proposes embedding technology in existing competences, including ethical judgement, research, drafting and supervision. It also proposes a separate section on supervising others. Source: proposed changes, sections on technology and supervision.

The SRA says it is not seeking changes to rules or regulatory arrangements. Its planned timetable is to publish final documents in April 2027, with changes taking effect in September 2027 before January 2028 SQE1 assessments. Those dates describe the consultation plan, not a completed reform. Source: consultation introduction.

Our analysis: make supervision visible in the work

Take a fictional client letter that includes an AI-produced explanation and a citation. A meaningful review should establish whether the cited material exists, supports the proposition and applies to the client’s circumstances. Preserve enough of that check to explain the decision without retaining unnecessary client data in additional systems.

The approval should identify the document version and the scope of review. “Reviewed” could mean a spelling check, a check of one paragraph, or acceptance of the advice as a whole. Those are different decisions. A later reader should not have to infer which one occurred from a short message in a separate conversation.

A three-part exercise for a supervising solicitor

First, give the reviewer a plausible draft containing one unsupported assertion. Ask them to find it and explain the evidence needed to resolve it. Second, revise a material paragraph after approval and check whether the workflow requires a fresh review. Third, hand the file to another colleague and ask them to identify what was actually authorised for release.

Record the result of that exercise as an internal test, including what failed and what changed. Do not describe it as proof that the tool or process is generally safe. The point is to locate a specific weakness before it reaches a client.

The practical conclusion

Put review responsibility at the point where a draft becomes an external statement. Name an owner for unresolved questions and prevent an approval of one version from being treated as approval of every later edit. This is our proposed approach to making supervision understandable; the consultation does not prescribe this particular record format.

We read the SRA’s published consultation, including its status, timetable and proposed technology and supervision changes. The document-review exercise is original editorial analysis. We have not audited a law firm or measured AI error rates.

1. SRA review of solicitor competence and Functioning Legal Knowledge, 8 October 2026