Richard Orpin, the new chief executive of the Legal Services Board, has hailed legal services as a “huge economic success story,” but warned that “AI is blurring the boundaries between regulated and unregulated legal advice.”
Speaking at LegalEx London, Orpin (pictured) highlighted that the revenue generated by legal activities in the UK grew from £41.4 billion five years ago to £52.3 billion in 2024.
Remarking on the rapid pace of innovation happening thanks to AI – such as Garfield AI, the first AI-powered law firm to be authorised by the SRA, and the use of Caddy AI by Citizens Advice – Orpin highlighted the challenge in regulating digital tools.
“Our message is clear: regulation must be open to responsible innovation, not a barrier to it,” he warned. That guidance is now being implemented, and we’re tracking progress in how the frontline regulators we oversee are acting on it.”
The LSB is already conducting research into the biggest areas for regulation currently facing the sector, including the “minimum standards” for AI legal tools, Orpin said.
One of the key issues, he explained, is that AI legal tools don’t always come from regulated law firms; they come from technology companies, legal tech start-ups “and a whole range of providers who sit entirely outside the regulatory perimeter”.
Under the Legal Services Act section 163 the LSB has the power “to enter voluntary regulatory arrangements” and “to accredit self-regulatory schemes run by others, or to publish registers of accredited providers”, Orpin added.
And, while the LSB has “never used those powers,” in the age of AI, he said “the time is coming when we must consider doing so”.
There is a strong case for establishing a clear framework of minimum quality standards for consumer-facing AI legal tools that industry can voluntarily adopt and that consumers can recognise, Orpin added.
He also called for the list of reserved legal activities, which was set out in the Legal Services Act 2007, to be substantively reviewed to better reflect a market which has “changed beyond recognition”.
“This is not a criticism of those who built those frameworks – they were right for their time,” he added.
“It is simply a fact that the world has moved, and regulation must move with it. We are committed to being pro-innovation.”
