The Law Society is calling for better oversight of agentic AI within the justice system, as new research warns it is developing faster than the rules needed to govern it.
A foresight study published by the Law Society cautioned systems capable of acting on behalf of humans could enter the justice system before it has been decided where AI stops and human judgement begins. With court hearings listed as far ahead as 2030, justice is currently under “immense pressure”, and the legal sector has seen more people turning to AI tools to help navigate proceedings.
However, concerns grow of potentially “inaccurate or misleading” AI information, creating more work for courts.
Unlike generative AI, which creates content, agentic or autonomous AI can take action on behalf of users and create new opportunities but can also bring “significant risks” across justice, public services and the government, The Law Society said.
While it could help reduce court delays and improve access to justice, The Law Society warned without robust safeguards errors can spread quickly, accountability can be fragmented and unclear or unequal access to advanced AI tools could widen inequalities.
The new study The Future of agentic AI in the Justice System investigated the balance of keeping the justice system trustworthy while these new systems emerge.
One of its key findings on agentic AI revealed that the technology “will not fix a failing justice system” but risks “reinforcing existing weaknesses such as underfunding, poor data and paper-based processes”.
It also found the divide between those in the legal sector having the resources to use AI effectively and those who don’t has created a “justice gap”.
The study also highlighted how agentic AI could “accelerate the reclassification of some judicial functions into administrative processes”, making the change “harder to challenge”. The report positively noted that used carefully, the technology could free judges and practitioners to focus on work that “genuinely requires human judgement”, however currently regulation is “poorly suited” to agentic AI.
The Society is calling for action to address the uncertainties around the technology, seeking for clear accountability for agentic AI in justice, better transparency of AI decision making, more meaningful human oversight and a public debate before widespread use.
Law Society vice president, Brett Dixon, said: “The justice system must not sacrifice fairness, accountability and public trust in pursuit of unmonitored efficiency. AI is not a silver bullet to improve the justice system. It could help to ease some administrative pressures, but it is not a replacement for much-needed investment in the court estate and additional court staff.
“Legal judgement cannot be delegated. Not in courts and not in the legal sector. Professional expertise that shapes, checks, questions, improves and approves AI outputs is needed now more than ever. The most important question becomes not what AI can do, but what should remain human. There is still time to shape the boundaries of AI before the market does it for us.”
The Future of agentic AI in the Justice System
Agentic AI
Agentic AI represents a fundamental shift from traditional generative tools by acting autonomously on behalf of human users to execute decisions and manage complex workflows. While this technology offers significant opportunities to improve operational efficiency and streamline burdened systems, its rapid development outpaces existing regulatory safeguards.
Without robust oversight, errors can spread rapidly across infrastructure and unequal access threatens to widen socioeconomic divides. Experts emphasize that professional expertise must remain central to question and approve outputs, ensuring human judgment is preserved.
One Response
AI, Conveyancing, and a Lawyer’s Independence
The Law Society is right to warn that agentic AI is developing faster than the rules needed to govern it. Its call for clear accountability, transparency, meaningful human oversight, and a public debate before widespread use is one every conveyancer should support. But the principle cannot stop at the courtroom door.
Its own study warns that agentic systems could accelerate the reclassification of some judicial functions into administrative processes, making change harder to challenge.
Conveyancing is exposed to the same risk.
Reclassify advice as process, and process as automation, and solicitors independence goes without anyone deciding it should.
Conveyancers have in recent decades, adopted every genuine improvement. What we should resist is reform imposed on us rather than agreed with us. The Law Society is a founding member of the Digital Property Market Steering Group, whose aim is to accelerate digital adoption across the property market. Many practitioners, myself included, do not recall being consulted on that commitment. In my view, it risks diminishing the independence of the solicitor.
So I ask the Society to apply its own test to homebuying. Consult practitioners before committing to digitalisation policy. Say publicly who speaks for us on bodies like the DPMSG. Make solicitor independence the condition of reform, not its casualty.
Conveyancers should be partners in this future, not its casualties.