SRA AI obligations library
Every SRA AI obligation, mapped to the evidence a firm must produce
The SRA has written no AI rules and has announced no intention to. It regulates outcomes, not tools, so every existing obligation applies unchanged when the work is done by a model. This is the full library we built from that position: each control traced to the instrument it comes from, quoted in full, and marked for how much weight it carries.
On the sources
Not every source carries the same weight
A Code paragraph and a paragraph in a Risk Outlook report are not the same kind of thing, and a library that flattens them is misleading. Every obligation is marked with the status of the instrument it comes from.
Binding rule· obligations
The Principles, both Codes of Conduct and the Rules. A breach is actionable in itself.
SRA guidance· obligations
The formal guidance series. The SRA may have regard to it when exercising its regulatory functions; a departure needs justification.
Court authority· obligations
Judgments, binding to the extent of their ratio. The sharpest standard currently applying to AI-assisted work.
SRA publication· obligations
Risk Outlook reports, Innovate resources and SRA blogs. Evidence of regulatory expectation, not a rule you can be sanctioned under directly.
Non-SRA regime· obligations
Obligations outside the SRA's arrangements that bite on the same conduct: the ICO, the EU AI Act, the PII minimum terms. A breach can also be an SRA breach.
The twelve domains
Everything the SRA expects on AI reduces to twelve domains
Each domain is anchored in binding text and sharpened by guidance and case law. It maps to a heading in the SRA's own five-principle AI taxonomy, and answers one plain question a firm should be able to answer about itself.
The library
Explore every control and the obligations behind it
Filter by domain or by the kind of instrument, or search the full text. Each control links to the obligations it rests on, and each obligation back to the controls that rely on it.
Showing 70 of 70
The credibility test
What is often asserted, and is not true
Every one of these circulates in the market. Each is wrong, and each is checkable in under a minute by a COLP. A library that repeats them discredits everything else it says, so we set them out plainly.
“The SRA has issued an AI warning notice”
False. None of the SRA's warning notices concerns AI or technology.
“The SRA has published AI guidance”
Nearly false, and newly true in one narrow respect. The only formal-guidance text addressing AI is the Effective supervision guidance as updated on 12 June 2026. Everything else is a Risk Outlook, an Innovate resource or a blog.
“The SRA ran a thematic review on AI”
False. The AI publication is a Risk Outlook report, a different and lighter instrument. Thematic reviews exist on other topics.
“SRA rules require AI disclosure in every retainer”
False. The word used is should, with the method expressly left to the firm. Always is used only for direct client-facing AI interfaces.
“Firms must offer a non-AI alternative”
Overstated. The Compliance tips page gives this as advice and a question, not an obligation.
“There is an SRA guidance page on outsourcing”
False. No such page exists. The requirements are distributed across the Codes.
“There is an AI incident reporting obligation”
False. The reporting guidance says nothing about AI, technology or cyber. The general serious-breach test applies.
“The SRA mandates AI training”
Not supportable as a technology-specific rule. It runs through the general competence obligations, which do bite.
“There is no SRA sandbox”
Now misleading. The SRA joined the Advisory AI Growth Lab on 8 June 2026, with legal services the first sector; applications opened on 3 August 2026 and close on 27 September 2026. It is a DSIT-led cross-economy sandbox in which the SRA participates, not an SRA-owned one.
“A civil procedure rule requires AI disclosure to the court”
False. Only the Upper Tribunal (IAC) judicial review claim form carries a standing certification. The Civil Justice Council is leaning against new requirements for professional drafting.
“AI exclusions are entering solicitors' PII”
Not found in the UK market, and impermissible in the minimum-terms layer. The real development is that underwriters have added AI questions to proposal forms.
“The LSB issued a 2025 or 2026 AI policy”
Not located. The LSB's AI material dates to April 2024.
“There are 1,600 or more UK AI hallucination cases”
That is a global tracker figure. UK trackers suggest around 67 as at July 2026, itself unverified.
“The DUAA abolished Article 22, and took effect on Royal Assent”
False on both counts. Articles 22A to 22D replaced it, the special-category restrictions survive, and the automated-decision changes commenced on 5 February 2026.
The library, answered.
How verification, governance, and the agents work inside an SRA-regulated firm.
Still have questions? Talk to the founderFrom the blog
The obligations in practice
What the regulator can ask for, and the checklist behind it.
See which of these your firm can evidence
The 10-minute readiness check maps your firm against these controls and returns a prioritised, source-cited gap report your COLP and COFA can act on. Or talk it through with founder Daman Kaur, who reads every reply. Your data stays in the UK or EU.