Lawyers Covered - June 2026

It can be tough for busy lawyers to find enough time to service clients, make it safely through the regulation obstacle course, win new work and keep up-to-date with developments, but we've got you covered! Welcome to our Lawyers Liability & Regulatory Update, in which we highlight the last month's key developments affecting lawyers and the professional risks they face.

To receive Lawyers Covered direct to your inbox, please subscribe here.

Updated guidance from the SRA following Mazur 

Following the Court of Appeal ruling in Mazur v SRA & Ors [2026 EWCA Civ 369 that unauthorised persons may lawfully perform tasks within the conduct of litigation under direction, management, supervision and control of an authorised person, the SRA has released new guidance on how to comply.

Developed in conjunction with the Law Society, CILEX Regulation, the Legal Aid Agency and the Law Centres Network, the SRA updated its 'effective supervision' guidance on 12 June 2026, translating the Court of Appeal's ruling into practical requirements for firms.

The guidance makes clear that simply having supervision structures on paper is not enough; firms must ensure that supervisory arrangements are understood by all parties and supervisors remain accountable for how those arrangements function.  Importantly, firms will need to be able to evidence the arrangements they have chosen and the risk-based reasons for adopting that approach.

The regulatory consequences of falling short are underscored by two (fictional) cases studies in the guidance and both make clear that the SRA will pursue enforcement action for supervision failures, even if harm to clients is not a concern, or not the primary concern.

For compliance officers, the guidance sets the benchmark against which the SRA is likely to assess supervision in any investigation.  Firms that have not revisited how work is delegated and overseen since Mazur would do well to treat the updated guidance as a prompt to do so now.

Duty to check emails in spam folder

The recent case of Berow v Maidstone Borough Council [2026] EWHC 625 (Admin) serves as a stark reminder of the importance of regularly checking your spam folder when corresponding by email. A brief summary of the decision and key takeaways are set out below.

Facts

Mohamed Berow appealed against Maidstone Borough Council's (MBC) decision to revoke his taxi licenses on grounds that the original email had gone into his spam folder and he was unable to locate it. MBC rejected his appeal on grounds that it was out of time and Mr Berow appealed unsuccessfully to the Magistrates' Court. 

Appeal outcome

Mr Berow then appealed to the High Court, arguing that the decision notice had not been validly served because it ended up in his spam folder. Given the parties' history of corresponding by email, sending the decision notice by email was sufficient. The court therefore held that the decision notice had been effectively served by email on 2 September 2024 and that a reasonable person in the same position would have checked both their email inbox and spam folder, to ensure they were aware of the notice. The judge found:

“There had been a successful electronic “handshake”. [The sender] had no way of knowing whether the email had gone into any particular folder or box in the appellant’s system … any reasonable person in [the recipient's] position would have kept an eye on both his email inbox and the spam box or folder, in order to make themselves aware of the notice…. In the circumstances of the present case, the [recipient's] failure to do so is akin to [a] failure… to examine the mail accumulating on the hall table.”

Key takeaways

Berow serves as a reminder that email subfolders and spam folders should be regularly checked, and that reasonable monitoring of inboxes is expected, particularly where correspondence and service of documents by email is agreed. Service of documents, even to a spam folder, will still be deemed as being validly served at the time of receipt even if not actually read by the recipient. Legal professionals should ensure that they have a system in place for monitoring of their spam folder.

Could this be the end of the AI-generated claim? What the Nippon case could mean for professional risks

The landmark US lawsuit Nippon Life Insurance v. OpenAI could represent a watershed moment for the intersection of technology and legal liability. In this case an unrepresented litigant used ChatGPT to analyse her previously settled dispute (arising out of declinature of a long-term disability claim she made to her employer); and ChatGPT informed her that she was being "gaslighted" by her former lawyers, who had told her that her case couldn't be reopened due to her agreeing to a release waiving any future claims. ChatGPT subsequently assisted her to draft circa. 40 filings to reopen the case.

Nippon Life has now issued a claim against OpenAI. The claim is founded on ChatGPT having allegedly:

• practiced without a license;
• induced a breach of a settlement agreement; and
• aided and abetted an abuse of process.

This is one of the first claims to accuse a major AI platform of practising law without authorisation to do so. In response, OpenAI has denied liability on the basis that ChatGPT is not a lawyer and is not practising law, and sought dismissal of the claim.  However, although liability is denied, the result of this publicity may put OpenAI and other AI developers under commercial pressure to implement further "guardrails". Certainly, if a lawsuit such as the Nippon case is successful, the incentive for such guardrails to be implemented is likely to be significant.  

As a result, to protect themselves from downstream liability, AI companies could transition from mere behavioural disclaimers (ChatGPT's standard terms prohibit: “provision of tailored advice that requires a license, such as legal or medical advice, without appropriate involvement by a licensed professional") to hard-coded architectures that prevents public chatbots from providing tailored legal advice or evaluating the merits of a dispute.

For Insurers, this potential restriction by GenAI and large language model developers would be a highly significant, and broadly welcome, prospect. The UK legal sector has recently seen a significant increase in litigants in person utilising conversational AI chatbots to generate complex, lengthy pre action correspondence which often only has (at best) superficial legal foundation. Claimants have actively weaponised free AI tools to pursue professional negligence claims against their former advisors, which Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas aptly refers to as an "avalanche of legal spam".

These AI-generated negligence claims often become highly attritional. They force defending law firms and their Professional Indemnity insurers to expend significant resources untangling lengthy (often unmeritorious) arguments. If AI platforms update their models to actively refuse legal requests and stop erroneously telling users they have a valid claim, we anticipate a reduction in notifications.

Ultimately, whilst a hard prohibition on AI legal advice might arguably present access to justice concerns, it would enable insurers and professional risk practitioners to focus on genuine exposures, rather than defending against the unchecked output of a chatbot. However, access to justice is not just an abstract aspirational aim – it has practical benefits to the legal profession and their insurers. A justice system that is accessible, efficient and trusted supports demand for legal services, reduces the escalation of unresolved disputes, and helps maintain public confidence in the rule of law. For professional indemnity insurers, early legal advice and effective dispute resolution can reduce the likelihood, severity and cost of negligence claims arising from missed deadlines, procedural errors or unmanaged legal problems. The extent to which AI furthers these objectives is nuanced and contentious.

Legal regulators issue AI guidance for barristers and NI solicitors – but where does this leave E&W solicitors?

As AI rapidly reshapes how the legal services work, regulators including the Bar Standards Board (BSB) and the Law Society of Northern Ireland (NI Law Society) have issued guidance to support barristers and solicitors practising in NI.

The BSB guidance provides a framework for barristers to use AI safely while meeting their professional duties. It explains how the BSB Handbook applies in practice when using AI and sets out good practice steps. For example, barristers should assess the risks, benefits and costs of AI before using it, and must protect client confidentiality and other sensitive information. The guidance also highlights that clients and opposing parties may use AI, and therefore barristers should anticipate how this may affect their responsibilities. 

Separately, the NI Law Society has launched new guidance on the responsible use of AI. It is intended to support solicitors and law firm staff who use AI in their work.

More broadly, other regulators and government bodies are also active. HM Courts & Tribunals Service is introducing simple rules for AI use in court. The Civil Justice Council (CJC) has proposed that lawyers involved in preparing court documents should be required to make a declaration where AI has been used and is consulting on whether rules are needed to govern the use of AI.

However, solicitors practicing in England & Wales have largely been left to navigate this dangerous territory without detailed guidance from their regulator. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) does not yet have any formal guidance on the use of AI. The closest offering from the regulator is a Risk Outlook report published in November 2023 which simply reviews how firms are using AI and a light touch "compliance tips" list released in February this year. In that document, in response to a Q&A about "key pinch-points with the Standards and Regulations", the SRA tell solicitors to "undertake due diligence to ensure that these platforms have been designed so that you are not in breach of your obligations" but give sparse guidance about how to achieve this self-evident goal. The SRA is reportedly preparing clearer rules, expected to be published later this year. Fortunately, the Law Society's guidance (last updated in October 2025) provides more of a steer.

Former Law Society Regulator raises concerns over SRA use of panel firms

Former Chair of the Birmingham Law Society's regulation committee, Jayne Willetts, has publicly raised concerns about the Solicitor Regulation Authority's (the SRA) use of panel firms to deal with SRA investigations.

Her concerns surround the SRA's response letters to complaints being signed from “Investigation Officer, Solicitors Regulation Authority”, including statements such as “I am an investigation officer at the SRA”.

The implications of such actions call into question the SRA's transparency when dealing with complaints in cases where complainants are not aware that outsourced firms have been instructed. Ms Willett's comments also give rise to questions whether confidentiality and privilege have been preserved were the complainant is unaware that potentially sensitive or privileged information is being shared with external law firms. 

The SRA have responded explaining that the panel solicitors are engaged via its usual procurement process, which includes conflict and confidentiality risk management checks and that they use SRA systems. They did however accept that external solicitors should not be described as investigation officers and will implement this change going forward.

"Finfluencers" create risk for private client lawyers

Private client lawyers are increasingly having to manage the fallout from “finfluencers” – social media personalities offering punchy, oversimplified financial takes that can collide with the realities of estate planning.

Research highlighted by the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners ('STEP') suggests more than a third of private client practitioners have encountered influencers making false claims and spreading misinformation about wills and financial planning, creating an added layer of risk for clients and advisers alike.

A particular concern is the way unregulated, context-free content is consumed by “next-generation beneficiaries”, shaping expectations long before families take professional advice. Greta Pender of the Collas Crill Trust in Guernsey describes finfluencers as a “core trend of concern”, warning that while greater engagement with money matters can be positive, trustees are alert to the downside: simplified guidance can create misaligned expectations, encourage inappropriate risk-taking, or undermine carefully considered long-term structures.

For advisers, the challenge is practical as well as principled. Clients may arrive convinced they have found a one-size-fits-all solution online, only for professionals to explain that succession planning depends on individual circumstances, family dynamics and jurisdictional nuance. The result can be longer consultations, more time spent correcting misconceptions, and greater sensitivity in client communications—particularly when a client believes they are “well-informed” but has in fact absorbed misinformation.

The message from practitioners is not that social media should be ignored, but that its influence is reshaping the advisory landscape; the real work increasingly includes re-establishing trusted, tailored advice in the face of viral certainty.

Hong Kong speeding ahead with quick complaint resolution

The Secretariat of the Law Society of Hong Kong (LSHK) released complaints statistics in May this year, which show that 75% of complaints made to LSHK about solicitors were determined within one year in 2025 - a significant improvement over the previous year*. Further, the proportion of complaints taking more than three years to resolve decreased by 50%, which will be welcome news to solicitors and complainants alike. It's unclear how England & Wales' Solicitors Regulation Authority compares: while 2024 data suggested that 93% of investigations were completed within 12 months, there has been a surge in reports in 2025-6, with an increase of 58% compared to 2024, which has led to the SRA hiring additional staff.

One factor behind LSHK's increased efficiency is its reforms to the process for dealing with straightforward or unmeritorious claims. These reforms were implemented in September 2024 (see the October 2024 version of Lawyers Covered) and, so far, 13% of complaints have followed the new streamlined procedures – suggesting that at least 13% of complaints are easily identifiable as straightforward at an early stage. By contrast, the SRA implemented a fixed penalty regime in 2022 and had issued 73 fixed penalties in 2024, comprising 42% of fines imposed that year but only about 7% of total cases that year where regulatory action was taken.

In addition to the streamlined procedures, LSHK's reforms include a refined and simplified workflow for cases where no prima facie evidence of professional misconduct, more prompt acknowledgement of complaints and the provision of guidance to the complainant and solicitor.

LSHK has indicated that it anticipates "careful adoption" of AI-enabled tools to aid complaints processing, which it envisages will increase speed and accuracy of complaint triaging, automate initial complaint assessment and enable earlier identification of patterns or recurring issues. This is perhaps not such welcome news to the profession, as many will still prefer wholly human decision making over a matter so important as the future of a career – particularly where uniquely human mitigation may be relevant. However, if anyone is likely to be alive to the potential privilege, human rights and privacy concerns involving entering data into an AI system, it is likely to be the regulator. And so far, the proposed use cases are limited to early on in the complaints process. The article confirms that further reform can be expected as part of a rolling programme of improvements aimed at increasing efficiency while maintaining a commitment to fairness and due process.

With thanks to our additional contributors: Ronan Clark, Joshua Bryant, Aimee Talbot and Sally Lord.

Disclaimer: The information in this publication is for guidance purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We attempt to ensure that the content is current as at the date of publication, but we do not guarantee that it remains up to date. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content.

If there are any issues on which you'd like more information (or if you have any questions or feedback), please do let us know or get in touch with your usual contact at RPC.

For a more focused look at regulatory developments for solicitors, delivered to your inbox, sign up to RPC Pulse here. Or check out the latest Pulse blog here.