Writ 252 Law tech special edition by Law Society of Northern Ireland

THE

WRIT

Issue 252 Autumn 2026

SPECIAL ISSUE

The Legal Profession and Law Tech Law Society of Northern Ireland

AI in the courts: An opportunity we should shape

Human rights in the era of AI

Choosing legal technology: 10 questions to ask before you buy

The Writ Autumn 2026

Contents Foreword

36 Burring the Lines: Real or fake in a Digital Age? Paul Tweed 38 AI, Deepfakes and the new Fronteir of Reputation Law Olivia O’Kane

3 Foreword Roisin McNamara

40 Educating Lawyers to shape the Profession: Law and Technology at Queen’s University Belfast Dr Tomas McInerney

Articles

42 Beyond Technical Skills: Why AI Literacy matters Dr Francine Ryan

4 Law Tech and the Rule of Law Angela Brady 7 AI in the courts: An Opportunity we should shape Sir Ian Huddleston 10 The Judge must fly the Plane: The Future of AI in the Courtroom John Keers, Dr John Mcord and Dr Adam Buick 12 The Centre for Legal Technology: One Year On John Keers, Dr John Mcord and Dr Adam Buick 13 An improved Means to an improved End? Use of AI by Clients and Colleagues James Milliken 14 Drafting an AI Governance Policy: Some Considerations Paul Farrell 15 The Use of AI by Litigators: Some thoughts Colin Mitchell 16 The Use of Technology in Domestic Abuse: Interview with Kerrie Flood CEO of Fermanagh and Omagh Womens Aid Claire McAleer

43 AI and the Trainee Solicitor: Why Professional Judgement matters more than Ever Denise Hanna 44 Tech Regulation in 2026: the move to direct Product Liability Michael Pratt 46 Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Prosecution: Building the PPS of Tomorrow Owen Crilly 48 Being good with AI: Professional Ethics in an Age of Machine-Augmented Practice Tadhg Hickey 50 Client Care in the Age of AI Joanne Cracknell 52 AI in Law Firms: Understanding the Risks and managing the Exposure Conrad Smyth 54 Choosing Legal Technology: 10 Questions to ask before you buy David Baskerville 58 Giving Lawyers time to be Lawyers: AI, Conveyancing and the Challenge of a Small Jurisdiction John and Emma Fox

20 Ten Minutes: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Everyday Solicitor’s Office Kevin Neary

60 Developments in Digital Assets Fiona Kirkpatrick,

22 AI in Law Firms: from Hype to Implementation Sean Kelly

62 Themis: Modernising Courts and Tribunals Services in Northern Ireland Pamela Reid

23 AI and Family Law: A helpful Tool but no substitute for Legal Advice Aoibhinn Hughes

64 Modernising Land Registers: An Update for the Profession Christine Farrell

24 Artifical Intelligence in Business: Advising SME clients on the Risks and Opportunities in Northern Ireland Emmet Maginn 26 AI, Transformation and the Future of Legal Practice Caoimhe Powell 28 AI in legal practice: Managing regulatory, ethical and Professional Obligations Jack Flanagan

66 Why AI: A Comment from an amused Onlooker Philip Wood

Advertorial 67

Peoplesafe Member offer

News 68 Dates for your diary

31 AI is Moving Fast. Can the Law Keep Up? Evelyn McClafferty 32 Human Rights in the Era of AI Fernanda Hermosilla 34 Cybercrime: Reflecting on 10 years Engagement with the Legal Sector Sam Kinkaid 2

Standing Items 70 The Young Solicitor and the Rise of AI James Greene 72 Meet the Trainees (x2) 74 Casenotes

The Writ Autumn 2026

Publishers The Law Society of Northern Ireland Law Society House 96 Victoria Street BELFAST BT1 3GN Tel: 028 9023 1614 E-mail: writ@lawsoc-ni.org Website: lawsoc-ni.org

Editorial Team Roisin McNamara Peter O’Brien Martin McAuley Elizabeth Dowling

Design Whitenoise Studios

Foreword Roisin McNamara, Head of Member Services, Law Society of Northern Ireland Welcome to the Autumn 2026 edition of The Writ. Welcome to the Autumn 2026 edition of The Writ. This edition of The Writ examines the legal profession and law tech, focusing in particular on one of the most significant developments affecting legal practice today: the rapid growth and adoption of artificial intelligence (AI).

Disclaimer The Law Society of Northern Ireland and its agents accept no responsibility for the accuracy of contributed articles or statements appearing in this magazine and any view or opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the Law Society’s Council, save where otherwise indicated. No responsibility for loss or distress occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by the authors, contributors, editor or publisher. The editor reserves the right to make publishing decisions on any advertisement or editorial article submitted to this magazine and to refuse publication or to edit any advertisement or editorial material as seems appropriate to the editor. The Law Society of Northern Ireland and its agents do not endorse any goods or services advertised, nor any claims or representations made in any advertisement in this magazine. No part of this publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the copyholder and publisher, application for which should be made to the publisher. © Law Society of Northern Ireland 2026

AI is no longer a distant prospect for practitioners. It is already influencing how solicitors conduct research, prepare documents, manage information and deliver high-quality services to their clients. As the contributions to this edition demonstrate, it is also reshaping how clients access information and engage with their legal advisers, potentially on a scale not seen since the advent of the internet. The pace of change is striking. New tools and capabilities continue to emerge, bringing opportunities to improve the delivery of legal services but also important questions about accuracy, confidentiality, accountability and professional judgement.

For solicitors, engaging with AI means understanding how the principles that underpin legal practice can be applied responsibly and ethically to these new technologies. The contributions that follow offer a wide range of perspectives. They explore the impact of AI throughout the administration of justice, from the police’s use of technology and the management of information by prosecutors to the experience of solicitors advising increasingly AI-informed clients and the role of the judiciary in shaping emerging practice. I am grateful to Sir Ian Huddleston and practitioners from across the profession who have taken the time to share their expertise and experience in this rapidly developing area. I hope this edition encourages informed discussion and a shared commitment to ensuring that technological change strengthens the standards and values of our profession. I also hope you find it an interesting and enjoyable read.

Roisin McNamara Head of Member Services Law Society of Northern Ireland M: 07837386004 LI: Roisin McNamara | LinkedIn Member Benefits & Services (please login)

lawsoc-ni.org 3

The Writ Autumn 2026

Law Tech and the Rule of Law The Law Tech Group was created in response to a growing need to ensure solicitors in Northern Ireland are at the very centre of developments around Law and Technology. The Group also aims to help solicitors harness new technologies, provide robust guidance and organise CPD events on key issues related to law tech developments and policies.

Angela Brady Principal Brady Solicitors Angela Brady is chair of the Group and in this article outlines some of the current concerns surrounding law tech and AI usage and their implications for the rule of law. Welcome to this edition of The Writ devoted to all matters law tech. My thanks to all who have generously submitted contributions. Huge thanks also to Damien McCann at the Society without whose sterling efforts this edition would not have been possible.

The Hook Tangaza report commissioned by the Society in 2022 states that sole practitioners make up 27% of the profession; sole principals 25%; 2-4 partners 40%; 5-10 partners 6%; 11-19 partners 1.4% and 20+ partners 0.6%. This means that 92% of our profession consists of firms of up to four partners. Responsible use of AI and law tech therefore can be of huge benefit, to smaller firms in particular, in improving bottom lines and achieving economies of scale that were previously unimaginable.

I hope you find the experiences of practitioners who have contributed articles to this edition to be of interest. It is always useful to hear from others about their experiences in implementing law tech and I hope that members also take the opportunity to share their experiences at the various upcoming local association cluster events. AI in particular has huge potential to improve the delivery of legal services, the administration of justice and access to justice and it is right to take advantage of all available resources, especially in times of constrained budgets.

The Writ Autumn 2026

At the same time that we are rightly taking advantage of law tech and AI in running our businesses, we are also officers of the court and as such we are required to be open, honest and transparent in our dealings and in exercising our duty to uphold the rule of law. Therefore, we must also be alert to any threat to the rule of law posed by AI in particular. One of Lord Bingham’s eight principles of the rule of law is that: ‘The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights.’ The use of new technologies is not incompatible with the rule of law. However, there are increasing concerns about the lack of protection of human rights raised in recent news reports on AI which include the following: • Privacy issues relating to Meta glasses, which can be of huge benefit to the visually impaired, but which are also used to film people in their daily activities without their knowledge or consent and, in particular, are used in the covert recording of women and girls.

• The use of AI automated hiring tools which have sparked discrimination and secrecy litigation in the USA. • Graduates and older candidates being filtered out by AI tools in successive applications for jobs without being given feedback on why they have been unsuccessful. There are even claims being brought in the USA courts which allege that job candidates are essentially blackballed by several different potential employers who happen to use the same AI hiring tool. The claim alleges that once the AI hiring tool has rejected a candidate in one company, it automatically rejects them at all other companies. These claims are denied. The judgment will make interesting reading whichever way it goes. • There are concerns in many countries about the building of data centres which consume vast quantities of water and energy at a time of massive climate change.

•C oncerns about the rights of persons in the creative arts who have had their work or their image and likeness used as training data without their consent. • Individuals who have been subjected to the misuse of AI through the creation of compromising and explicit deepfake images produced to demean and denigrate. The victims of intimate image abuse have struggled in prosecutions of the creators of these deepfake images because adequate legal safeguards and protections were not in place. • Issues around bias in AI tools used by police forces in police surveillance operations. •T he use of AI tools in military applications. •T he rolling back of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programmes by several major tech companies including Meta, Amazon, Google and IBM in the face of political pressure.

The Writ Autumn 2026

• Concern over the expressed political views of the men at the top of major tech companies and their influence over governments and democratic processes. • Concerns about the huge wealth of the companies and individuals at the heart of this tech revolution which also exposes the widening inequality gaps within and between nations. • Pressure being exerted on governments who seek to expand regulation of AI. Although it is interesting to note that recently some large AI companies having been demanding tighter regulation, others take an opposing view. In light of the dangers posed to governments, companies and individuals presented by recent incidents where AI agents have independently hacked third party company websites, the issue of greater regulation has become more urgent.

Angela Brady was admitted to the roll in 1992 and is the principal of Brady Solicitors which provides commercial legal advice and litigation support to businesses. She represents clients in areas including dispute resolution, debt recovery and insolvency proceedings and defends businesses being investigated or prosecuted by the NI Health & Safety Executive. In November 2025, Angela was elected to the Council of Law Society of Northern Ireland. She is chair of the Society’s Law Tech Group and a member of the Society’s Future of the Profession, Contentious Business and Professional Conduct Committees.

Angela is keen to explore how technology can enable solicitors to improve their service to clients, improve profitability and to enable better interaction with other stakeholders in the justice system. She has previously been elected as a council member of NI Chamber of Commerce, a director of Women in Business and a committee member of the Belfast South branch of the Federation of Small Business.

The Writ Autumn 2026

AI in the Courts

An Opportunity We Should Shape Judges are professionally trained and temperamentally disposed to be cautious. That instinct is indispensable where liberty, livelihood, family life or reputation may turn upon a decision. But caution must not become an alibi for passivity. Artificial intelligence is already changing how legal information is produced and presented. The question is no longer whether AI will affect justice, but whether the judiciary will shape its use in accordance with the rule of law.

The Honorable Sir Ian Huddleston Recent research involving 12 judges across the United Kingdom court hierarchy including five Supreme Court and five High Court judges - provides a useful reality check. Participants identified opportunities to improve information, consistency, efficiency, access to justice and court administration, while insisting that evaluative judgment, practical reasoning and responsibility remain human.

These findings are also broadly reflected in recent research by the Centre for Legal Technology at Ulster University which has explored agentic AI in judicial decisionmaking and developed a prototype judicial assistant tool ‘Hercules’, gathering valuable empirical evidence on judicial co-design, tool functions, systemic risks and redlines. Thus, the question is not one of ‘AI or judge’, but rather, which tasks can safely be supported while preserving judicial responsibility and the rule of law. That is where the debate must focus.

There is a further reason why that debate should move beyond the rather simplistic question of whether AI could ever ‘replace’ a judge. The empirical literature reviewed in that UK study suggests that generative AI is bringing us appreciably closer to systems capable of forms of artificial legal intelligence. We have all encountered alarming examples in the press and elsewhere of what the downside risk might look like.

The Writ Autumn 2026

The picture is, however, a strikingly mixed one. Large language models exhibit a distinctive legal failure mode with which courts are now becoming familiar: they can invent authorities, propositions and citations which are entirely fictitious. Examples of this abound both in the UK and globally. Yet the same body of research suggests that advanced models can perform at or around human levels on a range of discrete legal tasks, including aspects of writing, legal problem-solving and the annotation and extraction of information from case law. There is even emerging evidence of models reproducing some of the subtlety with which humans negotiate difficult questions between the letter and purpose of the law. For a judge, the significance of that evidence is not that a machine is knocking on the door of the judicial office - it is that the relevant unit of analysis may increasingly be one of the tasks of the judge. That is why the more recent directions of courts across these islands now require assurance and positive certification around the use of AI in cases. A system may be unreliable as an autonomous source of legal authority and yet extremely useful in identifying material within a large bundle; poor at the evaluative exercise of deciding whom to believe and yet highly effective at constructing an initial chronology; unsuitable for deciding a difficult question of law and yet valuable in locating competing lines of authority for the judge to examine. That distinction is important as it suggests that the responsible judicial response is neither to assume competence because an answer is fluent, nor to reject the technology because it is fallible, but to ask: what task is being performed, what is the evidence that the tool performs it reliably, and what level of human verification does that task require and, importantly, who is responsible for that verification?

In 2025 the Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland described ‘healthy scepticism’ where AI can improve the administration of justice. Undoubtedly, there are limits where human agency, transparency and the rule of law are engaged. What are mechanical tasks need to be distinguished from ‘peculiarly human’ ones in which empathy and judgment cannot and should not be delegated. The retiring Master of the Rolls has similarly argued that the present generation bears responsibility to shape justice systems for the machine age. From the bench, the issue is not technological possibility alone, but constitutional propriety and above all the maintenance of public confidence. As we have seen in other fields recently, that confidence can all too easily be undermined. Seen in that way, the most immediate opportunities for AI are practical rather than dramatic. AI can assist with legal research, document classification, case triage, anonymisation, transcription, translation, scheduling and data management in what are increasingly large electronic bundles for complex cases. It may construct an initial chronology, compare submissions, locate an overlooked document or authority, assist with judgment publication and summarise material that no individual could realistically assimilate within the available time. Properly used, those functions could reduce delay and release judges and court staff from repetitive work that does not itself require judicial judgment. Those advantages matter because judicial attention is a scarce public resource. Efficiency is not simply about processing more cases. From the judiciary’s perspective, its value is in preserving time for work that only a judge can perform: listening to parties, finding facts, assessing credibility, testing arguments, applying practical judgment and explaining the result. The UK study distinguishes between administrative and court tasks.

‘ The opportunity is significant, but so is the responsibility. The judiciary should help design that future.’ 8

Summarising an established factual background on appeal is very different from deciding at first instance who is telling the truth. There is nothing constitutionally troubling about technology being better than a judge at a task which does not require a judge; the constitutional question only arises when perceived assistance begins to displace the independent judgment for which the judge is personally responsible. The strongest case for AI is not replacement, but in the protection of judicial attention. There is also an access-to-justice opportunity which cannot be underestimated. AI may help courts communicate in plain language, produce child-friendly summaries, translate information and create guides to assist litigants through routine processes in a way that simply doesn’t exist at the minute. Small-value claims may become easier to organise or resolve. Responsibly analysed court data may reveal recurring causes of delay or inequality. This is not merely faster justice; it is the prospect of seeing more clearly where the system works and where it fails. Northern Ireland should approach this development with confidence as well as care. We are already undertaking one of the most significant programmes of court modernisation in a generation. The Themis Programme is a twenty-year, £85 million transformation contract, with an initial five-year programme replacing fragmented and outdated systems across civil, family, criminal and tribunal business and creating a digital-first, paper-light environment. Its significance for AI is not that Themis itself is an artificial intelligence project, but that it creates much of the digital infrastructure upon which responsible AI innovation may ultimately depend. Structured digital information, electronic bundles, modern case management and reliable court data make forms of search, summarisation, triage, analytics and judicial support easier to deliver safely. The earlier NICTS Modernisation Vision already contemplated electronic case bundles, digital case management, better case-management data and online dispute resolution. We should therefore think now about AI as a possible next layer of that modernisation might be integrated, rather than attempting to bolt it onto the system afterwards.

The Writ Autumn 2026

There is also a case for a wider Northern Ireland strategy. England and Wales now has an AI Action Plan for Justice, organised around governance and infrastructure, high-impact uses, and people and capability, with a ‘Scan, Pilot, Scale’ approach. In my view, it would be timely for the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, working with NICTS, the independent judiciary and the professions, to consider a Northern Ireland AI Action Plan for Justice. It need not replicate that model as our scale and Themis programme may allow something proportionate and locally responsive, but given that smaller scale and interconnectedness arguably it should be easier to achieve and perhaps even give NI a head start on how AI enabled justice might be delivered. Such a plan could identify where AI may properly assist the administration of justice; establish standards for procurement, security, data governance and audit; provide for judicial and staff training; create a framework for controlled pilots; and define those areas in which human judicial responsibility must remain irreducible. Its value would be to avoid fragmented adoption and place innovation within a coherent framework capable of protecting independence, public confidence and the rule of law. I have had the opportunity to sight the Ulster University Centre project ‘Hercules’ and its early findings. In my view it illustrates the preferable direction of travel. The value of an AI assistant lies not in asking a machine to decide a case, but in testing whether it can support research, bundle analysis, procedural checking, drafting and verification. Such systems should be co-designed with judges, grounded on authoritative materials and tested on realistic tasks. Themis can provide the digital environment; projects such as Hercules can establish what assistance is useful; and an AI Action Plan could then link experimentation to safe adoption.

These are not new issues for courts to grapple with nor therefore are they arguments for rejecting AI. In the final instance, they are design requirements. Court-facing systems must make verification easy, expose sources and preserve critical engagement. Personal and professional responsibility for everything presented to or issued in a judge’s name remains unchanged. UNESCO’s 2025 Global Guidelines are useful because they are grounded in practical judicial engagement. UNESCO’s 2023 global survey examined how judicial operators were already accessing and using AI, and its Guidelines record that judges, judicial support staff, prosecutors and lawyers around the world have begun using LLM chatbots to draft legal documents and judicial decisions and develop arguments. UNESCO’s response is to advocate for disciplined augmentation, based on principles including accuracy, explainability, auditability, transparency, responsibility, contestability and human oversight. Judges should not delegate their mandate or substitute an AI output for an independent analysis of facts, law and evidence. The UK guidance reflects the same essentials. The judicial guidance for England and Wales, updated in October 2025, addresses hallucination, bias, confidentiality, verification and the continuing personal responsibility of judicial office holders.

Importantly, the Lady Chief Justice confirmed in May 2025 that the then-current guidance had been circulated in Northern Ireland. That is a sound starting-point, although guidance, training, secure tools and institutional governance must develop together. AI should be neither an invisible clerk nor an unanswerable oracle. Used responsibly, it can reduce administrative friction, widen access to legal information, and preserve judicial time for human justice. Northern Ireland as a smaller jurisdiction can connect modernisation, research and governance: Themis as infrastructure, judicially informed experimentation as evidence, and a coherent AI strategy for responsible adoption. The opportunity is significant, but so is the responsibility. The judiciary should help design that future.

Sir Ian Huddleston is former chair of the Judicial Advisory Group to Themis Project and is Chair of the Advisory Board to the Centre for Legal Technology at the Ulster University.

The concerns identified by UK judges must be taken seriously. Participants described plausible, confident but wrong answers— including invented citations and summaries stating the opposite of the underlying decision. They also raised privacy, bias and de-skilling: the danger that judges cease going to source documents or newer judges fail to acquire the habits needed to challenge an automated answer.

The Writ Autumn 2026

The judge must fly the plane The future of AI in the courtroom John Keers Lecturer in Law Ulster University Dr John McCord Senior Lecturer Ulster University Dr Adam Buick Lecturer in Law Ulster University Imagine learning that a judge had used an AI system in the course of deciding a case against your client. Would you have wanted to know before the hearing? Would you tell your client? Should this be grounds for appeal? Such a scenario is no longer hypothetical, as parties in courts around the world have discovered over the past several years. The question of how AI should be used in judicial contexts, if at all, is now a relevant one for judges, lawyers, litigants and society as a whole. It’s also one we’ve been thinking about a lot at the Centre for Legal Technology. For the past year, we have been investigating how agentic AI could be used in the judicial system, the risks this raises, and how they can be addressed, as part of a project funded by the AI Security Institute and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). Perhaps unsurprisingly, our research has shown that there are major risks associated with the use of AI in judicial contexts. But we have also found that this technology has the potential to deliver real benefits for judicial systems. The challenge is how to capture those benefits while keeping the risks in check.

Meet Hercules Our project has involved more than academic theorising. We have also developed Hercules, a working proofof-concept judicial AI assistant named after Ronald Dworkin's imagined judge of infinite knowledge and patience. The name is knowingly ironic: Hercules is not a superhuman judge. Rather, Hercules has been designed to establish, with evidence, what a machine should and should not be permitted to do in the judicial setting. So, what does Hercules do? When we describe the design to judges, we use the analogy of the instruments in an aircraft's cockpit. These filter an overwhelming volume of information into something a human can act upon, as well as performing routine tasks and flagging dangers. Such instruments have made aviation extremely safe and reliable, but no one is in any doubt about who is flying the plane. Hercules works in the same way; it can read a case file, organise the parties' positions, surface the relevant authorities and offer structured analytical support, but it does not make decisions by itself. This meaningful human control is built into the system's architecture: every function operates within deliberate constraints, all outputs are explainable, and an audit layer preserves what the system did and where the human reviewed it.

Over the past several months, we have tested the capabilities of the Hercules system. The results are encouraging; against real case materials, including skeleton arguments and oral submissions, Hercules found the authorities that mattered and reached legally accurate assessments of outcomes. Limited testing against real Court of Appeal cases in England and Wales has shown mixed results but genuine cause for optimism. However, we have also found that the most important dangers associated with the use of AI in judicial contexts don't come from the capabilities of the model involved. For example, we have found that when the same case is run through our system against a different curated knowledge base, the legal conclusion changes, even though the facts and the model do not. Accuracy in a legal AI system, in other words, depends on what material the system draws from, who curated it, and how. This points to the questions that matter most, which concern how judicial AI tools are designed, deployed and governed.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Admissible Evidence

AI for NI

These questions cannot be left to the engineers designing such systems or the bureaucrats who procure them. Judicial AI demands judicial co-design, with safeguards and red lines set by the bench itself. To that end, we have worked closely with the judiciary throughout the project. Hercules has been demonstrated at judicial workshops in Belfast and London, and we have gathered detailed empirical data on judicial expectations around control, transparency, auditability and acceptable functionality. We found that judges are open to using AI in their work, particularly in those areas where the pressure on judicial time is most acute, such as digesting voluminous material, organising issues, and structured evaluative support.

This research was led from Northern Ireland. A jurisdiction of our size, with a connected profession and an engaged bench, is well placed to show how judicial AI can be introduced carefully and credibly. We have argued that the UK should build its own closed-domain judicial model, trained solely on authoritative legal sources with assurance and auditability designed in, rather than importing general-purpose tools into constitutionally sensitive work. Northern Ireland can help lead that effort rather than wait for it.

These empirical findings add to a limited but strikingly consistent body of research from a variety of jurisdictions. A focus group study of 12 UK judges, including five members of the Supreme Court, found openness to everyday AI assistance alongside hesitation about reliability and fear that overreliance could erode public confidence. This trend extends beyond the common-law world; a survey of Portuguese judges found that automation was thought capable of fair outcomes only in the earlier phases of adjudication. Our project has provided evidence of what judges will accept, where the technology genuinely helps, and where the dangers lie. It has also shown that those dangers are constitutional and systemic, not merely technical. But those dangers will not go away if judges are banned from using AI, not least because some judges would continue to make clandestine use of AI tools. What is needed is evidence-based governance.

We recently presented Hercules at an International Future of Law Association workshop on the responsible use of AI in justice systems, where a colleague reminded us of Lord Denning in Packer v Packer (1954): ‘If we never do anything which has not been done before, we shall never get anywhere. The law will stand still whilst the rest of the world goes on; and that will be bad for both.’

We firmly believe his observation applies equally to AI in judicial decision-making. The law should not stand still. It should move forward, with the judge flying the plane.

John Keers BL, Dr John McCord, and Dr Adam Buick, Centre for Legal Technology, Ulster University. For further information on the project and its findings, please contact the authors. Contact details can be found at https:// www.ulster.ac.uk/research/topic/law/ centre-for-legal-technology/people/ staff

‘ The law should not stand still. It should move forward, with the judge flying the plane.’

The Writ Autumn 2026

The Centre for Legal Technology One Year On John Keers Lecturer in Law Ulster University Dr John McCord Senior Lecturer Ulster University Dr Adam Buick Lecturer in Law Ulster University Ulster University’s Centre for Legal Technology was formally launched on 18 September 2025, before 180 guests, among them senior members of the judiciary, government representatives, industry leaders and legal practitioners. In the twelve months since, we have built a programme of research and public engagement that speaks to the pressing questions technology now poses for law and justice. Our flagship project is our research into the use of agentic AI in judicial decision-making. Supported by a £200,000 grant from the AI Security Institute, it has already produced Hercules, our working proof-of-concept judicial AI assistant (see the accompanying article). We have engaged closely with the judiciary throughout, presenting at the UK Supreme Court in February 2026, taking part in a judicial roundtable convened through the Office of the Lady Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and running a workshop in London with senior members of the judiciary of England and Wales. The first peer-reviewed articles from the project will appear in the coming months. That project is not the only place where we are putting external funding to work on the future of AI and the law.

In a separate project funded by Responsible AI UK, we have explored how a cryptographic technique called zero-knowledge proofs (which allows one party to prove a statement is true without revealing the data behind it) might strengthen trust, transparency and accountability in the use of AI across the justice system. But we are not only concerned with the problems of the future; we are also working on those facing the legal profession today. With the Labour Relations Agency and TalkTerms AI, we have provided research, ethical oversight and evaluation frameworks for a mass case-management pilot covering more than 250,000 holiday-pay dispute claims.

Much of what we have achieved this year began with a conversation, whether that was a practitioner describing a problem, a firm asking whether a tool would survive contact with real cases, or a public body wondering what responsible adoption looks like in practice. We would be glad to hear from solicitors, barristers, in-house teams, public bodies, technology companies and academic colleagues who would like to work with us, whether by partnering on a funded project, testing an idea, hosting a student placement, speaking at one of our events, or simply talking through a problem you think we might help with. We are just as glad to hear from those who are sceptical about legal technology, since that scepticism is often where the most useful research questions begin.

Public engagement and the dissemination of knowledge are central to the Centre’s purpose, and we have hosted a number of events to that end this year. In association with the Law Society and Factor Law, the Centre ran Understanding AI and Legal Work: Practical Guidance for Practitioners, a free, CPD-accredited event supporting the responsible adoption of AI across legal practice. In June we hosted Blockchain Future: Symposium 2026, which brought together academics, practitioners, policymakers, technology leaders, regulators, students and early-career researchers to consider how blockchain is moving from concept to real-world adoption.

One year on, the Centre for Legal Technology has established itself as a serious voice in national and international debates on technology and the law. In the months ahead we will take part in the Franco-British Lawyers’ Society’s 2026 Annual Colloquium, The Young Lawyer in the Third Millennium, on 15 and 16 October. A LegalTech Hackathon follows on Thursday 5 November, and a full legal technology conference on Friday 6 November. That is only a preview. We have much more planned in the coming year and beyond, and we look forward to working with the legal profession across Northern Ireland as we do.

Our researchers have taken the Centre’s work further afield too, with presentations at ICAIL in Lisbon, the LegalTechTalk Conference in London, the Vienna Conference on AI and Law (where we won best presentation), Harvard Law School, Brooklyn Law School, the Oxford Institute of Technology and Justice Symposium, and Big Data Belfast to name but a few. None of this work happens in isolation, and the Centre’s doors are open.

John Keers BL, Dr John McCord and Dr Adam Buick, Centre for Legal Technology, Ulster University. If you are interested in the work of the Centre for Legal Technology or would like to collaborate with us in future, full contact details can be found at https:// www.ulster.ac.uk/research/topic/law/ centre-for-legal-technology.

The Writ Autumn 2026

An Improved Means to an Improved End? Use of AI by Clients and Colleagues James Milliken Associate Solicitor Carson McDowell LLP In one of his most famous works, ‘Walden; or, Life in the Woods’, Henry David Thoreau argued in favour of caution when adopting new methods of technology. ‘Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys’, he wrote, which ‘are but improved means to an unimproved end.’ Thoreau’s argument was that the development of novel methods of communication is not necessarily good in and of itself: while we may be ‘in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph from Maine to Texas; Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing important to communicate.’ Thoreau never had an opportunity to experience the development of the latest pretty toy - generative AI - and he certainly never had to deal with its use by clients and colleagues in the legal sector, but one thinks that his view would be roughly the same today: we shouldn’t be in such great haste to adopt generative AI before first carefully working out how this improved means can lead to an improved end. And what is an improved end? Surely, it’s an improvement to the speed and quality of services we offer our clients while simultaneously preserving and protecting the things that our clients come to us for – judgement, accuracy, confidentiality, context and expertise. AI can doubtless offer major improvements in efficiency, but its adoption by clients and colleagues must remain consistent with the existing role and duties of solicitors.

Use of AI by Clients and Colleagues AI is clearly already sitting on both sides of the solicitor’s desk. Clients may use it to prepare instructions, review contracts, assist with negotiations or improve their understanding of advice provided by their solicitor. Colleagues, for their part, may use it to draft, summarise documents, assist with legal research or as part of the ever tricky prioritisation and organisation process.

In May 2026, the Law Society of Northern Ireland (LSNI) reported (citing the Law Society Gazette) that 89% of legal professionals across the UK and Ireland, including Northern Ireland, use AI tools in some capacity, with 70% adopting them in the previous year. Clearly, AI use is not a theoretical opportunity. It’s a current reality. AI can, according to the LSNI Guidance on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (2026) be used for a wide range of tasks, including arranging notes, generating and reviewing contracts, drafting and rephrasing emails, eDiscovery, engaging with clients directly through chatbots, simplifying legal concepts for clients, summarising cases and documents and transcribing meetings. Used well, AI can reduce the burden of high-volume and repetitive work and free solicitors to spend more time on improving the advice and assistance they provide to their clients. However, colleagues must remain vigilant. As the LSNI Guidance states, ‘solicitors have an overriding responsibility to use AI in a way that is compliant with their other professional obligations.’ AI use should not diminish the proper standard of work that clients expect from solicitors. It should not be considered a shortcut and its outputs should be carefully checked and verified by colleagues before being used. If colleagues are in any way concerned that AI use might impact on their professional duties and responsibilities, they should err on the side of caution and avoid using it; sometimes, doing things the old-fashioned way is the price of proper compliance with our professional duties and responsibilities. Likewise, AI use offers myriad opportunities for clients. We, as solicitors, can often take for granted our understanding of the legal concepts on which we advise our clients. However, clients may find it difficult to understand those concepts and therefore to properly consider our advice and give further instructions. AI can bridge that gap, helping clients understand advice in simpler terms, ask questions and become more informed and engaged. This should contribute to clearer instructions, especially when combined with the utility of AI in drafting summaries, chronologies, instructions and emails. As such, AI has the potential to improve the solicitor-client relationship and ultimately to improve outcomes for clients.

However, AI use by clients clearly has the potential to create friction. AI outputs may be jurisdictionally inaccurate (for example, failing to properly differentiate between law that applies on a UK-wide basis, law that applies in Great Britain only and law that applies in Northern Ireland only), incomplete, or otherwise incorrect. It may also make assumptions and respond to prompts in a sycophantic manner, causing overconfidence on the part of clients. This may lead to disagreements with the solicitor as regards risk, legal mechanisms and drafting approaches, particularly if clients use AI to ‘check’ solicitors’ work. While AI use can certainly improve the solicitor-client relationship, solicitors must be mindful that it can just as easily dilute that relationship and threaten solicitors’ position as the first port of call when clients require trusted, expert legal advice.

What next? Given that nine-tenths of legal professionals across the UK and Ireland are already using AI tools in some capacity, it seems fair to assume that there is a similar level of adoption by clients. AI is the third party in the room in every solicitorclient interaction. This reality should be acknowledged by both solicitor and client, and the opportunities presented by AI should be clearly articulated. Both parties should be aware of what the other is using AI for and in particular what is going in and what is coming out. An open and clear conversation between solicitor and client, combined with ethical and compliant use by solicitors, can maximise the chances of improving efficiencies and achieving the improved end of a better solicitor-client relationship. Solicitors have long been seen as trusted advisors, a safe pair of hands guiding clients through the murky and often opaque legal world. That role remains vital even as AI changes how we work. Solicitors still need to provide expert legal advice; however, their role has expanded beyond simply telling clients the answer to helping them determine whether that answer can safely be relied upon. Maine and Texas may not have important things to communicate, but solicitors and clients certainly do. AI, used properly, can absolutely assist with that communication.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Drafting an AI governance policy Some considerations Paul Farrell Partner McIvor Farrell Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming embedded in legal organisations of every size. As usage becomes more widespread, the need for robust AI governance frameworks is clear. As the Data Compliance Officer at McIvor Farrell it fell to me to consider and draft our firm’s AI policy. By way of background, I am from a generation where clients came to solicitors for advice and expected a response within a reasonable timeframe but now it is often the case that clients come forearmed with their own AI research. This in turn prompts a preliminary AI search on the part of the advisor in order to keep up with the everincreasing demands for a rapid response. This change prompted the decision to implement an AI policy. What I thought would be a relatively simple and straightforward matter became anything but when I settled down to establish clear rules governing the firm’s deployment and use of AI within what is an evolving regulatory landscape in the UK’s legal sector. Unlike the EU, the UK has not introduced a standalone AI Act. Instead, the UK Government has adopted a principlesbased and sector-led approach, relying on existing frameworks and to include core regulatory principles such as safety, transparency, fairness and accountability. However, the position in NI is potentially more complex under the Windsor Framework and solicitors should be alert to the possibility of future regulatory divergence between NI and the rest of the UK.

Who is responsible? One of the most important aspects of any AI policy is the allocation of responsibility. With regards to AI this is not only a straightforward IT issue. AI presents legal, ethical, operational and perhaps most importantly reputational risks that require oversight at a senior solicitor level. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) stresses that organisations should have documented governance frameworks, senior management oversight and clearly defined responsibilities in relation to the use of AI. When drafting our firm’s policy, I considered senior management accountability for AI governance, designated a responsible officer (me), and set out clear reporting lines for any AI risks or incidents of data disclosure. Perhaps most importantly of all, I made it clear that accountability for data breach risks and the accuracy of information relied upon ultimately remains with the solicitor and is not delegated to IT support or the AI provider.

Data protection concerns Data protection, as I see it, will be the most important and significant issue arising from the use of AI. We remain responsible for ensuring lawful processing and accuracy of personal data at all times. It was therefore crucial when drafting our office policy that I set out the bases for processing personal data and restricting entering confidential or personal information into public AI tools to prohibit employees from disclosing client confidential information or sensitive personal data. As always, professional privilege and client confidentiality are paramount and should be reflected in any policy, AI or otherwise.

Ultimately, human oversight is the safeguard to the use of AI and policy should reflect this. AI outputs must always be reviewed, and final decisions remain the responsibility of all authorised personnel who should not blindly follow AI recommendations or guidance. It should be made clear in any policy that erroneous AI-generated outcomes that are relied upon can generate a significant liability exposure.

Bias Another issue that I became aware of when looking into a policy was a warning that AI systems may unintentionally reproduce or amplify existing biases contained in information data. Ultimately, as solicitors, we are responsible for any discriminatory outcomes of research, regardless of whether those outcomes arise from human or automated decisionmaking. This is something I addressed by having the policy provide for monitoring of AI outputs by those using it with any issues that may give rise to potentially discriminatory outcomes to be brought to my attention.

Final thoughts Drafting an AI policy requires much more than simply acknowledging the increasing use of this emerging technology. It demands a robust governance-focused approach, that addresses issues such as accountability, data protection, transparency and human oversight. Ultimately, if AI is used incorrectly or relied upon wrongly, the reputational harm is to the solicitor and the firm not ChatGBT or Co-Pilot - making the need for a comprehensive firm-wide policy more important than ever.

The Writ Autumn 2026

The use of AI by litigators Some thoughts

Colin Mitchell Senior Vice-President Law Society of Northern Ireland and Partner McCartan Turkington Breen As in other areas of practice, the use of AI by solicitors involved in litigation is becoming more widespread. I have had occasion to take part in many discussions both internationally and locally about the use and operation of AI in litigation. I have also had some personal experience in using AI packages and have my own thoughts as to the current and future landscape, which I will share below.

How useful is AI? There is no doubt that AI programmes are useful to a litigator. One programme that I have come across allows the practitioner to analyse and summarise substantial amounts of information from a specific type of document that is often important in a niche area that I practice in. The AI model is trained to identify themes and cross-reference from its database to spot inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the information provided. This saves a lot of time. It is also clear that as AI matures it will continue to integrate further into our case management systems. Each update will add a new suite of options. It is not hard to envisage how such a system will alleviate many mundane tasks.

What are the limits of AI in litigation? The limits of AI in a litigation context should be obvious to an experienced litigation practitioner. These include: 1. The AI programme is not responsible for what is provided to the other side or the Court. The solicitor is. It will not be an excuse to say, ‘I relied on the AI.’ The solicitor is required to check and cross check before making any assertion. This is particularly true swearing an affidavit or making submissions to the Court. The AI programme will not be sued or struck off. There is a real danger that litigators will become reliant on AI and will automatically rely on the answers to prompts rather than do the hard yards.

2. The above is also true for evidence. An AI programme might, for example, be able to analyse medical notes and records in respect of a medical negligence claim. Whilst that might be a useful starting-point it can be no substitute to the solicitor analysing those records themselves, drawing their own conclusions, and advising accordingly. Anything else is simply irresponsible and dangerous derogation. 3. AI cannot replace the human interaction that is essential to any properly operating retainer. Litigation is no exception. For the parties involved, litigation as a process is alien, intimidating and incredibly stressful. The stakes to the parties involved will also be extremely high. As such, empathy, the ability to give advice in plain English, and respond to client concerns and questions in a human way will remain paramount. AI cannot replace those abilities. It is also impossible to do this without having a thorough knowledge of the file. 4. In litigation you are as often required to give bad news as well as good news. AI is woefully unfit for this task.

The dangers of using AI in litigation The risks involved in using AI are shared across the profession and many relate to the limits outlined above. They include: 1. Newly qualified solicitors may come to rely on AI and not learn the skills required to conduct litigation properly, safely, and ethically. To a certain extent this is as much a challenge for employers, educators, and regulators as it is for the newly qualified. The importance of these skills and professional obligations cannot be emphasised enough by educators. Thoroughly checking AI output will no doubt become as important a skill as taking a contemporaneous note, for example. 2. ‘Hallucinations’ of judgments are occurring in courts around the world. The AI programme is not at fault here. This is pure laziness by the preparer of the paper. There is nothing wrong with using AI but not to check the result is unforgiveable. Whilst AI is new, the act of misleading the Court and the attendant consequences are not.

3. Using open-source AI Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT should be avoided as much as possible, since any prompt you put in to such a system will lose privilege. As a result, both the prompt question and response are discoverable. If the AI programme is closed source (e.g. the data never leaves your secure servers) then it is not privileged. 4. Arm in arm with (3) above is perhaps the biggest single risk - compromising client data. Uploading client data to an opensource LLM is the same as posting it on the internet. The reputational and financial risks of uploading medical reports, for example, are both obvious and terrifying. 5. The cost of AI systems to firms is an issue. If AI becomes essential to running a litigation practice, then the cost of implementing same will price some firms out of the market. If your case management system provider comes to you stating ‘we are updating our package to include AI and there will be a 50% increase in licence fees and other installation costs’ – how many firms can sustain that? 6. The pricing of litigation services will become an issue for debate. The traditional billable hour method will not sit well with a body politic and public who are hearing tales of programmes that allow litigators to do a week’s work in 10 minutes. It will be important to counter this by producing a narrative that reflects the true picture that this new AI world does not remove the need for (amongst many other things) proper review, experience, expertise, and capital expenditure.

Conclusion AI is growing increasingly useful by the week, but it is also becoming more dangerous. In a litigation sense that danger does not arise from AI itself but rather the behaviour that its ease of use encourages. It is essential that proper training on use of AI is engrained at all stages. Firms should have clear policies and training. The Society has helpfully produced guidance on responsible use of AI, and I encourage all solicitors, whether involved in litigation or in other areas of practice, to read it. 15

The Writ Autumn 2026

The Use of Technology in Domestic Abuse Interview with Kerrie Flood, CEO of Fermanagh and Omagh Women’s Aid

Claire McAleer Chair, Women’s Network Solicitor, R M Cullen and Son In 2024, the NI Executive launched a strategy to target the growing issue of Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG). While 2026 sees us moving into the second phase of this strategy, there have been a number of high-profile cases involving the murders of women here in Northern Ireland, most often by an intimate partner. But VAWG is much more than physical violence, and technology is increasingly contributing to the problem. I have had deeply unpleasant personal experience of what it is like to be a woman online, both as Chair of the Women’s Network and as a former political candidate. However, I know this barely scratches the surface of how technology can be used against women, and so I was delighted to be able to delve into the topic with my friend Kerrie Donnell, CEO of Fermanagh & Omagh Women’s Aid.

Hi Kerrie. How long have you worked at Women’s Aid and how did you get started?

In what ways has technology changed the landscape?

I actually started as a volunteer in Women’s Aid in 2011. From there I became a Funding Officer, then Development Manager, and over time moved into senior leadership. I am now CEO of Fermanagh & Omagh Women’s Aid. I have been with Women’s Aid for about 15 years and I have seen a huge change in the way technology features in women’s lives and, unfortunately, in abuse.

We quite often talk about ‘leaving’ as if the woman has crossed a line and is now away from the abuse. In reality, an abusive partner can still have multiple ways into her life after separation, and technology has created even more of those routes.

When I started, we were talking mainly about mobile phones, Facebook, texts and passwords. Now it can be location sharing, shared cloud accounts, smart watches, children’s devices, banking apps, doorbell cameras, cars, trackers, smart-home systems, AI and wearable technology. But the important point is this: the abuse itself is not new. Technology has not invented coercive control. It has simply given perpetrators more ways to do it. In that time, have you noticed a change in how women are targeted or abused? Yes, absolutely, but the motives behind it are very familiar. Domestic abuse has always involved things like monitoring, isolation, humiliation, threats, control of money, stalking, sexual abuse and making a woman account for where she is and who she is with. Now, there are just so many more ways that women can be targeted and abused.

We have to think about location tracking, online banking, smart watches, AirTags and other trackers, connected cars, cameras, cloud accounts, gaming accounts, children’s devices, home-security systems, smart speakers and all the different accounts people share within families. It can also increase the sheer volume of abuse. Someone who is blocked on one platform can set up another account. They can contact family members, friends or employers. They can impersonate someone. They can repeatedly message through different apps. They can post information publicly or use other people to continue the harassment. And for women, that can become exhausting. There is also an evidential issue here which I think legal professionals in particular need to understand. Women can come to services with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of messages, screenshots, call logs and other pieces of information. The problem is not always that there is no evidence. Sometimes there is too much evidence and nobody is standing back and looking at what it all means together. One WhatsApp message might look insignificant. Fifty messages, location monitoring, repeated unwanted contact, appearing unexpectedly, accessing accounts and using the children as another route of contact can tell a completely different story. That is why the pattern matters.

The Writ Autumn 2026

I know you have talked before about women having to navigate a lot of different systems and the issues that brings. How does technology fit into that? This is a big issue for me. When we talk about a woman leaving an abusive relationship, we can make it sound much simpler than it actually is. She may suddenly be dealing with police, a solicitor, family court, criminal court, social services, housing, benefits, schools, health services and Women’s Aid.

It's pretty clear that technology can benefit those seeking to abuse or harass women. Do you ever see times when technology can actually help women? I can recall you once sharing with me that Women’s Aid had their website set up with an instant ‘kill’ button, so women could access the information and support there without fear of being caught. Absolutely, and I do not want the article to leave women thinking that technology itself is dangerous.

I know what you’re saying, but it definitely feels like there are just so many technological avenues through which women can be abused. What can women do to keep themselves safe digitally? The first thing I would say is not to panic. If you suddenly discover that a partner or former partner may have access to your accounts or location, the instinct can be to immediately change everything, delete accounts or confront him. That is not always the safest thing to do. If somebody is controlling and monitoring you, suddenly cutting off their access can alert them that you know what is happening, and that can sometimes increase risk.

She may be doing that while frightened, exhausted, trying to keep her children safe, trying to work out how she is going to pay bills and, in some cases, while the person who abused her is continuing to contact or monitor her.

Technology can be a lifeline. That is especially true where we work in Fermanagh and Omagh because geography matters. A woman may be living miles from the nearest service, without easy transport, in a very isolated rural area.

Then we can turn around and ask: Why didn’t she keep that screenshot? Why did she reply to him? Why didn’t she change the password? Why did she agree to that contact? Why didn’t she report this sooner? I think we need to be very careful about that.

Her phone can connect her to Women’s Aid, police, a solicitor, her bank, friends and family. It can help her access information privately. It can help her keep evidence. It can allow her to manage money independently or contact somebody when she is frightened.

Women can think about who has access to their Apple or Google account, whether location sharing is turned on, who knows their passwords, whether two-factor authentication is available, who controls smart-home devices and what information children’s devices are sharing.

Our systems should be making things easier and safer for women. Too often women are the ones having to join the dots between systems that are not joining the dots themselves. That is also where technology can make things worse. If every agency has another portal, another form, another login, another set of information she has to provide, it becomes one more thing she has to manage.

Technology can also help women understand what is happening to them. Sometimes even being able to search and recognise that what you are experiencing has a name – coercive control, stalking, economic abuse – can be significant.

It can also be useful to think about things we often overlook, like shared family accounts, cars, tablets, gaming systems and old devices. If you are receiving abusive or threatening messages, keeping them may be important. Screenshots, dates and call logs can all help establish a pattern.

AI potentially has a role in that too. It can make complicated information easier to understand, help someone organise questions before speaking to a solicitor or explain terminology.

Get advice and safety-plan first.

But women should not be left feeling that their safety depends on being perfect at gathering evidence. That responsibility sits with the systems responding to abuse as well.

But I would put a very big health warning around that. AI is not a substitute for legal advice, police or specialist domestic-abuse support, and women need to be careful about putting highly personal or sensitive information into any online system without knowing how that information will be used or stored. The principle for me is simple: technology should increase a woman’s choices and independence, not reduce them.

The Writ Autumn 2026

What does AI add to all of this? AI adds another layer and it is developing incredibly quickly. One of the biggest concerns is that it lowers the bar. You no longer necessarily need significant technical skills to create convincing false content, manipulate an image or impersonate somebody. Deepfake sexual images are a really obvious example. A perpetrator does not necessarily need an intimate image of a woman anymore. He can potentially create one. That is deeply disturbing because the image may be fake, but the impact on the woman is very real. The humiliation is real. The fear is real. The damage to her reputation or employment can be real. And then there is the issue of evidence. We are moving into a world where somebody can create very convincing fake material, but equally somebody can dismiss genuine evidence by saying, ‘That was made by AI.’ That creates a whole new challenge for police, legal professionals and courts. Are there particular groups of women who are more vulnerable to this kind of abuse? I tend to be careful with the word vulnerable because it can make it sound like there is something about the woman that creates the problem. Often it is the situation around her. A woman with limited digital skills may find it harder to work out what is happening. A disabled woman may rely on technology or another person to manage devices. Women who are financially dependent, socially isolated, have language barriers or insecure immigration status can face additional difficulties getting help. And rurality absolutely matters. Technology can be brilliant in reducing isolation, but it also means a perpetrator can exercise control from miles away.

Children are also increasingly part of this picture. A child’s phone, tablet, smartwatch, gaming account or location settings can potentially tell someone where that child is and, by extension, where their mother is. After separation, technology used for contact between a parent and child can also become another route into a woman’s life. That does not mean children should not have devices or contact with parents. It means professionals need to understand the risks and ask the right questions. As solicitors, what should we be looking out for? I would say: do not wait for a woman to tell you she is experiencing ‘technologyfacilitated abuse.’ She probably will not use that phrase. She might say:

‘He always seems to know where I am.’ ‘He keeps logging into my account.’ ‘He calls the children constantly.’ ‘He knows things I haven’t told him.’ ‘He keeps making new accounts after I block him.’ ‘He turned up somewhere and I don’t know how he knew I was there.’ Those things should make us curious. Ask a few more questions. Who set up the accounts? Who controls the passwords? Is location sharing enabled? Who controls the doorbell camera or smart-home devices? Who manages the children’s phones? Are there shared family accounts? And most importantly, look at the whole picture. Domestic abuse very often looks different when you stop looking at each incident separately. That is particularly important with coercive control and stalking.

Be honest, Kerrie… is the legal system keeping up? It is improving, but I do not think any of us can say the system is keeping pace with technology. Northern Ireland has made important progress with domestic abuse legislation and stalking legislation. That matters. But having legislation is one thing. Recognising the behaviour in practice is another. A woman should not need to arrive in a police station or solicitor’s office already knowing which offence may have been committed. She should be able to say, ‘Something is happening and I am frightened,’ and have professionals who know what questions to ask. That is the challenge. Technology changes rapidly, but the basic question should remain fairly simple: is somebody using this technology as part of a pattern of intimidation, control, surveillance, harassment or abuse? If the answer is yes, we need professionals who can recognise that. One thing that I’m very concerned about as a woman, and a mother, is Meta glasses, not least because of issues with consent. How do you see those impacting violence against women and girls? I would not say that we are routinely seeing Meta glasses being used in cases at the minute, but they are a very good example of where technology is heading. Most people know if somebody lifts a phone and points it at them that they may be recording. That becomes much less obvious when the camera and microphone are built into something that looks like an ordinary pair of glasses. Think about childcontact handovers, schools, workplaces, court buildings, meetings or interactions with a former partner. That creates obvious questions about recording and privacy. But in domestic abuse I also think about the psychological impact. If a woman believes that every interaction might be recorded, that alone can affect what she says, where she goes and how she behaves. That matters in coercive control. Again, it is not really about whether Meta glasses are ‘bad’. It is about how quickly ordinary technology can be adapted and weaponised by somebody who wants to control another person.

The Writ Autumn 2026

What should be done, and by whom? Everybody has a role. Technology companies have to think much more seriously about safety when they design products. Government and legislators have to keep law under review because the technology will not wait for legislation to catch up. Police, solicitors, prosecutors, courts and social care professionals all need training in what technology-facilitated abuse actually looks like. Specialist services need the resources to keep pace too. And I think systems need to get much better at talking to each other. Women should not have to tell the same story over and over again or become the person responsible for explaining to one agency what another agency already knows. For solicitors specifically, I would say this: if something feels small or odd or difficult to categorise, do not dismiss it.

Ask what else is happening. Ask whether there is a pattern. Because very often that is where the abuse becomes visible. The technology will continue to change. Next year we will probably be talking about things we have not even considered today. But the fundamentals will not change. Look at the behaviour. Look at the pattern. Look at the impact on the woman. And keep the responsibility where it belongs – with the person choosing to abuse. If something in this article feels familiar If you are worried that a partner or former partner may be monitoring your phone, location, accounts, car or other technology, you do not have to work it out by yourself. You can contact your local Women’s Aid service for confidential specialist support and safety planning. If you think a device or account is being monitored, consider getting advice before making sudden changes or confronting the person involved.

IF YOU ARE IN IMMEDIATE DANGER, CALL 999. Local groups Women’s Aid Feder ation Northern Ireland

The Writ Autumn 2026

Ten Minutes:

Artificial Intelligence and the Everyday Solicitor’s Office Kevin Neary Notary Public, Solicitor, Principal Donnelly Neary Donnelly

I should begin with a confession that is also the point of this article. The piece you are reading was drafted using the very technology it discusses, and the whole of it — from the moment I gave the instruction to the moment a finished, structured draft was sitting in front of me ready to be edited and submitted — took about ten minutes. I did not type it from a blank page. I asked the system to draw together a body of material on artificial intelligence that I had already built up across my own work over the preceding months, and to turn it into an article for The Writ. What you have is the reviewed result. I make the confession at the outset because the ten-minute figure is the argument. A profession that measures its work in units of an hour ought to take notice when a task that would have occupied the better part of a working day is reduced to minutes. The interesting question is no longer whether the technology works. It plainly does. The interesting question is how a regulated practice uses it safely, and that is what the rest of this article is about.

AI-assistance notice: this article was prepared with the assistance of an artificial intelligence system (Claude, developed by Anthropic) and reviewed by the author before submission.

By way of context, I am a director of two Northern Ireland firms — Donnelly Neary & Donnelly in Newry and JPHLAW in Portadown, with branches across midUlster — and we practise on both sides of the border within a few miles of it. Over the past year, the AI system Claude has become part of the daily furniture of both offices. It produces first drafts of attendance notes from recorded transcripts, advice notes on awkward areas such as the interaction of inheritance tax and capital gains tax, chronologies and factual matrices built from a file of correspondence, pre-action protocol letters to Northern Ireland requirements, purchase documentation to City of London standards, and analyses of a mailbox into a chronological brief. None of this is exotic. The value lies in the accumulation of small savings across the working week.

What these tools are Before going further I want to be candid about what these tools are, because the candour is the safeguard. A large language model is a system that generates text by predicting the most probable continuation of the words in front of it. It is extremely good at drafting, summarising, restructuring and explaining. It is not a database of verified law, it has no independent means of knowing whether what it has produced is true, and it will, on occasion, generate a case citation or a statutory provision that looks entirely real and does not exist. The danger is precisely that the wrong answer is indistinguishable in form from the right one. The model presents the false with the same fluency and confidence as the true. From that single fact everything else follows. The cardinal rule in both my firms, which I commend to every reader, is that nothing the system produces leaves the office — to a client, a court, a tribunal or a third party — until a qualified fee-earner has read it, checked every citation and statutory reference against an authoritative source, confirmed the jurisdiction and adopted it as the firm’s own work. Claude drafts. The solicitor remains responsible. The speed with which a draft appears changes nothing about where the professional responsibility sits. There are two further matters that any practitioner must get right before putting client information anywhere near these systems, and they are matters of conduct, not merely of preference.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Tier and confidentiality

Skills: the real investment

Verifying the work

The first is the tier. Free and personal consumer subscriptions are governed by consumer terms, under which conversations may be retained and, unless the user opts out, used to improve the models. That is incompatible with the duty of confidentiality, and a solicitor must not put identifiable client information into such a service. The commercial tiers — Team, Enterprise and the API — are different. They operate under a data processing addendum under which the provider acts as the firm’s data processor, does not train its models on the firm’s conversations and provides standard contractual clauses for international transfers. A practice intending to use AI on client work must be on a commercial tier and must instruct staff that personal accounts are not to be used for any client matter. The cost is trivial against the risk.

The single most valuable investment a practice can make in this technology is not a clever prompt but a Skill. A Skill is a saved, reusable instruction set the system applies automatically every time it is engaged. In my firms the foundation is a Northern Ireland jurisdiction lock, which fixes the default jurisdiction and embeds the rules that a model trained largely on English and American material will otherwise get wrong: enduring powers of attorney under the 1987 Order rather than lasting powers of attorney; the Industrial Tribunal rather than the Employment Tribunal; the Labour Relations Agency rather than ACAS; the Land Registers of Northern Ireland rather than HM Land Registry and the application of Stamp Duty Land Tax here. A mirrorimage Republic of Ireland lock enforces the Workplace Relations Commission, the Property Registration Authority, the Revenue Commissioners and the Acts of the Oireachtas. Built once, these locks make a cross-border practice safe to operate, and they cause the jurisdictional errors that make general AI dangerous for lawyers largely to disappear.

Hallucination is the risk that has put practitioners before the courts elsewhere, and the discipline against it is simple and absolute. Every case citation is verified on BAILII before it appears in anything that leaves the office; a citation that cannot be found there is not used. Every statutory reference is checked against legislation. gov.uk or, for the Republic, the Irish Statute Book. Court rules are confirmed against the current rules of the relevant court. This verification is taught to new staff as a reflex rather than an afterthought.

The second is data protection, which is widely misunderstood. There is no artificialintelligence exception to the law. Personal data does not cease to be personal data because it has been pasted into an AI tool, and the firm does not cease to be the data controller. Staff must minimise — supplying only the data the task requires — and pseudonymise, replacing names with placeholders where the substance of the task does not need real identities, which is most of the time. Special-category data attracts heightened obligations. And there is a privilege dimension that the recent American decision in United States v Heppner illustrates: although not binding here, its reasoning maps cleanly onto our own analysis, and the lesson is that privileged material processed through a consumer service whose terms permit retention or training may forfeit the very confidentiality on which the privilege depends.

The cross-border point deserves emphasis for a border readership. Left to its own devices, a general model will import English law, and occasionally American law, into a Northern Ireland or Republic of Ireland answer, and it will do so convincingly. The jurisdiction locks are the structural defence, but the practitioner must still read every output with the importation risk specifically in mind and ask, on review, whether anything has crept in from the wrong jurisdiction. An English limitation period applied to a Northern Ireland claim is not a curiosity; it is a negligence.

‘ A firm’s documents must not read as though a machine wrote them.’ This article is provided for general information. It is not legal advice and is not a substitute for the practitioner’s own professional judgement, the rules of the relevant regulator or the terms of the practitioner’s own AI subscription. Product features described are current to June 2026.

There is a development the profession should anticipate. As litigants and their advisers gain these tools, the volume and the apparent sophistication of litigation will rise while the quality of the analysis within it remains uneven. A respondent solicitor will increasingly meet submissions that are AI-generated, lengthy and superficially formidable. The answer is not to refuse the technology but to use it in turn, under proper supervision, to marshal and answer such argument. The practitioner who can do that will be better placed, in quality and in economics, than the one who cannot. A final word on the look of the thing. AI text has a recognisable register — an overuse of adjectives, a fondness for inflated transitions, a drift towards length. A firm’s documents must not read as though a machine wrote them. A house-style Skill and a plain instruction to write in plain professional English, to prefer the active voice and to strip the document back when it has grown too long will cure most of it; supplying a sample of one’s own drafting to anchor the tone cures the rest. I am conscious that I have spent most of this article on caution rather than on enthusiasm, and that is deliberate. The enthusiasm needs no help from me; the tools are capable and the productivity is real and immediate. The caution is what makes the enthusiasm safe. Commercial tier, jurisdiction locks, data minimisation, verification against authority, house style and human supervision — hold to those, and a practice can take the productivity and avoid the risk. This article, produced in roughly ten minutes by the very tool it describes and then reviewed before submission, is offered as a small demonstration of both halves of that proposition at once.

The Writ Autumn 2026

AI in Law Firms: From Hype to Practical Implementation

Sean Kelly Finance Manager PA Duffy & Co Solicitors AI is no longer a future consideration for law firms. It is already influencing how legal services are delivered. For most firms, the key challenge is not understanding what AI can do, but how to introduce it in a controlled, secure and commercially viable way. From a finance or office management perspective, AI is not simply a technological development. It represents an operational and risk management issue. The firms that will derive real value are those that approach AI with the same discipline applied to any major investment: with clearly defined objectives, robust evaluation and controlled implementation.

Start with the Problem, Not the Technology A common pitfall is adopting AI solutions based on market hype rather than genuine need. When firms fail to define a clear purpose, systems are often underutilised or ineffective. In practice, successful implementation begins with addressing specific operational challenges including time spent on repetitive drafting and supporting solicitors with research. AI should enhance existing workflows, not disrupt them unnecessarily.

Evaluating AI in a Legal Context AI tools differ from traditional legal software because their outputs may vary and require validation. This makes evaluation more nuanced. Key considerations include: •W hether the tool is designed or adapted for legal use; •H ow outputs are verified before they are relied upon; and •H ow the system integrates with existing case management and document systems. Equally important is the credibility of the supplier. A reliable provider with strong support and transparency around system limitations is often more valuable than a more advanced tool with limited practical backing.

Cost, Value and Return on Investment AI solutions are frequently marketed on the basis of efficiency gains and cost savings. While these benefits can be achieved, they are not always immediate or easily quantified.

A proper financial assessment should consider:

Common issues include:

• Ongoing subscription or licensing costs

• Scepticism regarding reliability and accuracy;

• I mplementation and integration expenditure • Staff training and time investment • Expected productivity improvements In many cases, the most meaningful returns are indirect. Improved turnaround times, greater consistency in output and enhanced client service all contribute to long-term competitiveness, even if they are not immediately visible in financial metrics.

•U ncertainty about how tools should be used in practice; and • Concerns about the impact on professional roles. Addressing these challenges requires a structured approach, to include: • Clear communication about the limits of AI tools; •T argeted training based on real workflows; and

Managing Risk: Security, Compliance and AI

•O ngoing support as staff adapt to new ways of working.

AI cannot be treated as an exception to established governance. It must be integrated within it.

Ultimately AI should be presented as a support mechanism that enhances professional judgement rather than replacing it.

For law firms, the use of AI raises legitimate concerns around confidentiality, data handling and regulatory compliance. Furthermore, some AI platforms process data externally or use it to refine their models, which introduces additional risk.

Embedding AI into Daily Practice

This is where a strong security framework becomes critical. Our experience in achieving Cyber Essentials Plus certification proved particularly valuable in this regard. The process required a detailed review of our systems, controls and supplier relationships, reinforcing a fundamental principle: any new technology must meet, and ideally exceed, existing security standards.

The value of AI is realised when it becomes embedded in everyday processes. This requires active management rather than passive adoption. Firms should: • Identify specific tasks where AI adds measurable value • Set expectations for appropriate use • Monitor outputs and refine processes over time Importantly, firms must retain oversight at all times.

Certification emphasised the importance of: •U nderstanding risk before implementation; • Ensuring controls were consistently applied across systems; and • Maintaining clear accountability for data security. In the context of AI, this translated into: • Understanding where data was stored and processed; • Ensuring robust access controls and permissions were in place; • Verifying that client data was not used beyond the firm's control; and •C arrying out appropriate due diligence on all providers.

Implementation: The Human Factor The technical deployment of AI is rarely the most difficult part of the process. The real challenge lies in implementation within a live working environment.

Conclusion AI presents a genuine opportunity for law firms to improve efficiency and enhance service delivery. However, it is not without risk. A structured, practical approach focused on business need, financial discipline and robust governance is essential. From a management perspective, the objective is not simply to adopt AI, but to do so in a way that delivers measurable value while maintaining the highest standards of security and compliance. In many respects, AI represents the next stage in the evolution of legal technology. Firms that take a considered, disciplined approach grounded in real-world operational experience will be best placed to benefit from it. Those that do not risk investing in tools that fail to deliver or, worse, introduce new and avoidable risks.

The Writ Autumn 2026

AI and Family Law

A Helpful Tool, but No Substitute for Legal Advice

Aoibhinn Hughes, Solicitor PA Duffy & Co Solicitors The rise of AI has transformed many aspects of daily life, and the legal profession is no exception. From drafting correspondence to researching points of law, AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar platforms are now widely available, increasingly sophisticated, and becoming more widely adopted by those working in the legal profession. It is no surprise, then, that clients involved in family law proceedings are also turning to these tools for assistance, whether to understand their rights, prepare documents, or simply to make sense of what can be an overwhelming and emotionally charged process. As family law practitioners, we recognise the value that AI can bring. It can provide general information quickly, help individuals organise their thoughts, and offer a starting-point for understanding legal concepts. However, our growing experience of clients using AI throughout the course of proceedings has highlighted significant risks, which, in some cases, have led to serious and irreversible consequences. In the emotive area of family law, the stakes are especially high, and decisions made during divorce proceedings, disputes over children or financial settlements can have lifelong consequences.

The Jurisdiction Problem One of the most significant dangers of using AI for legal matters in Northern Ireland is the question of jurisdiction. Our legal system, whilst sharing some similarities with England and Wales, is a separate and distinct jurisdiction with its own legislation, court rules, and procedural requirements. AI tools are typically trained on vast quantities of data drawn from multiple jurisdictions predominantly from England and Wales, the United States, and other common law systems. They do not reliably distinguish between the law as it applies here and the law as it applies elsewhere. This means that a client in Northern Ireland who asks AI a legal question may receive an answer that is perfectly correct in another jurisdiction but entirely wrong for their own case. The consequences of acting on such information can range from procedural errors to substantive misunderstandings of one's legal rights and obligations. In family law, jurisdictional accuracy is not a minor detail, it is fundamental.

A Cautionary Tale: The Form M6 We are aware of a case which illustrates the real-world dangers that misuse of AI brings. A client involved in divorce proceedings was required to complete a Form M6 — the standard form by which a Respondent in Northern Ireland indicates their position in response to a divorce petition. The client, who was content for the divorce to proceed but did not wish to be held liable for costs, decided to use AI to assist him in completing the form. He instructed AI that whilst he did not intend to defend the divorce, he did not want to pay the costs of the divorce asking AI to fill out the form on that basis.

The AI system guided the Respondent how to respond and the Form M6 was completed and returned to the Matrimonial Office. Upon receipt of a bill of costs for the divorce proceedings from the Petitioner’s solicitor, the Respondent queried the reason for the bill and sought legal advice at that stage. It transpired that whilst the AI system had correctly noted that the Respondent did not intend to defend the divorce proceedings, it had also, critically, indicated that the Respondent had no objection to paying the costs of the proceedings. The client, unaware of the legal significance of these entries, filed the form with the court with the result being that a Decree Nisi was granted on the basis of unreasonable behaviour and, because the Form M6 indicated no objection, full costs were awarded against the Respondent. By the time the client realised the error, it was too late to remedy. What had seemed like a straightforward exercise in using technology to save time and money had saddled the client with a costs order he had specifically wanted to avoid.

Legal Training Remains Essential Cases such as this reinforce a fundamental truth: AI cannot understand the nuances of a client's individual circumstances, it cannot exercise professional judgement, and it cannot be held accountable when things go wrong. Legal training exists for a reason. Solicitors spend years learning not only the substantive law but also the procedural rules, the local practice, and the art of applying legal principles to the facts of each unique case. While AI may help clients to prepare for initial discussions with their solicitor, it is clear that it is no substitute for professional legal advice. 23

The Writ Autumn 2026

Artificial Intelligence in Business Advising SME clients on the risks & opportunities in Northern Ireland

Emmett Maginn Partner, Head of Dispute Resolution Caldwell Robinson Barry Donnelly Partner, Corporate and Commercial Caldwell Robinson Artificial Intelligence (‘AI’) has seen rapid progress in recent years, both in terms of technical capability and its adoption as an everyday business tool. The attraction of AI for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’), is clear in terms of the efficiency and productivity gains that can potentially be achieved. Our experience is that SMEs are finding that using AI allows them to scale quickly and compete with larger enterprises. For lawyers, this presents significant challenges in having to advise clients in a rapidly evolving risk landscape. SME clients, that often lack a human resources or IT department, increasingly require advice, not only on compliance with existing legal obligations and risks, but also on governance frameworks for AI deployment, contractual allocation of risk, intellectual property issues, cybersecurity and data management, employment practices and professional/regulatory accountability.

Understanding the Different Types of AI Used by SMEs Although ‘AI’ is often discussed as a single technology, businesses typically use several distinct forms of AI, each with the potential for different practical and legal implications. GENERATIVE AI Generative AI includes large language models that create text, summaries, software code, marketing materials, contracts, reports and images. SMEs typically use it to draft correspondence, prepare reports, create marketing content, summarise documents and support customers.

This use of AI has created the following issues: (i) Employees may upload confidential commercial information, personal data or legally privileged material to public AI platforms without understanding how it may later be processed and used in publicly available large language models. (ii) When using AI, organisations remain responsible for UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 compliance. Lawfulness, transparency, purpose limitation and data minimisation still apply. (iii) Questions may arise over ownership of AI-generated content, thirdparty copyright infringement, use of copyrighted material in prompts and protection of AI-assisted works. (iv) Generative AI can produce convincing but incorrect information. Businesses relying on AI without human verification may face contractual liability or negligence claims. PREDICTIVE AI Predictive AI analyses existing information to forecast future outcomes. Businesses use predictive AI for sales forecasting, fraud detection, inventory management, maintenance scheduling and, in the case of more complex predictive AI software, for financial modelling. Predictive systems create exposure where decisions rely on inaccurate, biased or incomplete datasets. Issues include negligent decision-making, discrimination, regulatory breaches, inaccurate financial reporting and contractual disputes from incorrect forecasts.

DECISION-SUPPORT AI Decision-support systems recommend actions while leaving final decisions to humans. It may be used in recruitment, credit risk assessments, research and compliance monitoring. The main risk here is over-reliance on decision-support tools without proper human oversight. If discriminatory or unlawful recommendations are accepted, liability generally remains with the organisation, not the software provider. This risk is acute in employment law where recruitment algorithms may disadvantage groups with protected characteristics. AGENTIC AI Agentic AI is rapidly expanding, with SMEs seeing significant productivity and efficiency gains. It undertakes actions with reduced human intervention. Examples include autonomous chatbots, logistics, robotic automation and cybersecurity monitoring and response. Agentic AI raises questions about accountability, agency law, contractual authority and liability when a ‘negligent’ AI decision causes loss. Businesses should therefore ensure sufficient human oversight and governance before deploying systems capable of acting independently.

Risks common to all forms of AI that lawyers need to be advising their clients about DATA PROTECTION Most business uses of AI involve some form of personal data. Key considerations therefore include ensuring a lawful basis for processing, transparency, particular safeguards for automated decisionmaking, restricted international transfers, contractual processor agreements, security measures, and data retention, access and deletion policies.

The Writ Autumn 2026

None of these obligations are new but they have become more acute. as businesses have increasingly moved their delivery online and begin to utilise the various AI systems available. COMMON LAW CONFIDENTIALITY AND LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE Clients need to be aware that uploading legal advice or documents received from their lawyers into AI products in order to ‘check’ them or get a second opinion could mean that those clients are giving away confidential or commercially sensitive information, as well as waiving their right to claim legal or professional privilege over those documents. Where the documents concern ongoing commercial transactions or negotiations between lawyers that are confidential, then the client using AI in this way may well expose themselves to a breach of contract or breach of confidentiality claim from the other party (as well as potentially scuppering any deal or settlement). EMPLOYMENT LAW ISSUES AI increasingly influences recruitment, performance management and disciplinary processes. Common legal risks include potential discrimination, algorithmic bias and failure to comply with proper grievance, conduct and capability procedures. The key point here is that human oversight remains essential where AI contributes or assists in the making of employment decisions. Customers are increasingly seeking contractual assurances regarding whether suppliers use AI in delivering services.

Governance is key as is the role of the trusted legal advisor Despite initial reluctance from businesses the question posed by our clients is rarely whether their organisations should use AI, but rather how best to protect themselves when using AI. All SMEs should be asking themselves: • What AI are we using? • Who is responsible for overseeing how we use it? • What data enters these systems and how do we ensure that personal, confidential or commercially sensitive data never enters an open AI system? • What decisions might our use of AI influence or impact? • What contractual protections exist? • Are our employees properly trained? • Do we have regularly updated policies and procedures in place for how we use AI, and what to do when something goes wrong? • If challenged on our use of AI, are we able to demonstrate compliance? • How can we work with our lawyers to manage and mitigate the risks that our use of AI presents?

The Particular Challenge for SMEs Although AI presents opportunities for organisations of every size, the legal risks are often most acute for SMEs. Firstly, SMEs frequently lack dedicated legal, compliance and information governance teams.

AI adoption may therefore occur informally, driven by individual employees seeking efficiency gains rather than through structured organisational approval. Secondly, SMEs often rely upon freely available consumer AI platforms. These products may provide limited contractual protections, uncertain data handling practices and minimal opportunities for negotiation of terms of use. Thirdly, resource constraints frequently limit investment in staff training, cybersecurity and AI governance. Without clear internal policies, employees may inadvertently disclose confidential information, upload personal data or rely upon inaccurate AI-generated outputs. SMEs may also underestimate the extent to which AI has already become embedded within existing software products. As AI functionality is incorporated into mainstream office applications, organisations may process data through AI-enabled features without appreciating the associated compliance implications. Commercial bargaining power presents a further challenge. Larger customers increasingly require suppliers to demonstrate robust AI governance, cybersecurity controls and data protection compliance. SMEs unable to evidence appropriate governance may find themselves disadvantaged. Finally, the financial consequences of legal error are often proportionately greater for smaller organisations, which lack the financial resilience of larger enterprises.

Conclusion AI is here, whether we like it or not. Our clients are using it in their personal lives and increasingly in their businesses. The use cases for AI in business are myriad and are constantly expanding, and the risk for SMEs is particularly acute, but so too are the potential gains. As lawyers we need to be able to respond to and address the needs of clients that make use of AI in what is, and probably will remain for some time, a fragmented AI regulatory environment.

For legal practitioners in Northern Ireland, the challenge is not merely in understanding the technologies underlying AI, and the risks they pose, but helping clients integrate AI into their businesses in a manner that is legally compliant, commercially effective and supported by appropriate governance. Those firms that can combine technical understanding with practical legal advice are likely to become trusted legal advisers as AI moves from its disruptive innovation phase to a point where it has become embedded within all sectors of the modern economy.

Whilst lawyers and law firms will undoubtedly face many challenges as a result of AI, the role of the trusted legal advisor will only become more important against this backdrop. AI will not replace lawyers, but lawyers who understand and utilise AI may well replace those who do not.

The Writ Autumn 2026

AI, Transformation and the Future of Legal Practice Caoimhe Powell Director HSF Kramer Artificial intelligence has become one of the defining conversations within the legal profession. Yet focusing solely on AI risks missing the bigger picture. The real story is one of transformation. Across the legal sector, firms are rethinking how legal services are delivered by combining human legal judgement and expertise with technology, data, process improvement and new delivery models. AI is an important part of that evolution, but it is only one part. The firms making the greatest progress are embedding technology into the way legal work is designed, delivered and managed, rather than treating it as a standalone innovation project or tool roll-out. At Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, it all starts with our clients: AI forms part of a broader transformation in how legal expertise, technology and process are combined to deliver better – and new – outcomes for clients. Used thoughtfully, it can help lawyers work more efficiently, uncover insights more quickly and spend more time on strategic analysis, client relationships and problem-solving. However, successful adoption depends not only on the technology itself, but on the culture, leadership and professional judgement that guide how it is used.

Belfast: At the Forefront of Digital Legal Delivery

AI in Practice: From Experimentation to Delivery

The legal profession has experienced several waves of technological change over the past decade. We have seen the growth of eDiscovery, technology-assisted review, workflow automation and increasingly sophisticated data analytics.

Only a short time ago, much of the discussion around AI focused on experimentation. Firms were testing tools, exploring use cases and seeking to understand both the opportunities and the risks. Clients and lawyers alike wanted reassurance regarding confidentiality, information security and the potential for hallucinations.

Within Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, our Digital Legal Delivery team brings together lawyers, legal consultants, legal technologists and data analysts to support clients across disputes and transactions. Increasingly, legal work is delivered through multidisciplinary teams, combining legal expertise with technology and operational excellence. This enables us to design and deliver workflows that combine the right mix of human expertise and technology for each task. For Northern Ireland, this is a particularly significant story. Belfast has been central to the firm's digital transformation journey for many years. Long before Generative AI entered everyday legal vocabulary, Belfast teams were helping drive innovation in areas such as eDiscovery, managed legal services and technology-enabled dispute resolution. Today, Belfast continues to play a leading role in developing and delivering innovative legal solutions across the firm's international network. The significance of that contribution extends beyond technology. It reflects the depth of legal, operational and technology expertise that has developed within Northern Ireland and demonstrates the increasingly important role Belfast-based professionals are playing in shaping how complex legal work is delivered globally.

Those considerations remain critically important, but the conversation has matured. Today, lawyers are increasingly asking not whether AI can be used, but which technology is appropriate for a particular task and how it can be integrated into existing legal workflows. None of this is to suggest that the adoption of Generative AI has been straightforward. Practitioners continue to grapple with legitimate questions around accuracy, hallucination risk, confidentiality, regulatory expectations and the appropriate level of human oversight. There is also an understandable degree of caution within a profession built on trust, professional judgement and accountability. The challenge for firms is not simply whether to use AI, but how to do so in a way that is transparent, defensible and consistent with professional obligations. As the technology, regulatory landscape and client expectations continue to evolve, maintaining that balance will remain one of the profession's most important priorities.

‘ One of the most important lessons emerging from the profession's experience of AI is that human expertise becomes more important, not less.’ 26

The Writ Autumn 2026

Perhaps the most significant change is that AI is no longer confined to innovation teams or proof-of-concept exercises. It is increasingly being deployed within live matters, supporting lawyers working on real client challenges. The focus is not on technology in isolation, but on combining legal expertise, process design and AI-enabled workflows to improve delivery. Across both disputes and transactional practices, AI is increasingly supporting activities such as document review and analysis, due diligence, information extraction and drafting assistance. Used appropriately, these tools can help legal teams process information more efficiently, identify relevant issues more quickly and direct their attention to the aspects of a matter that require the most careful legal analysis. Within our disputes practice, we are now pioneering practical workflow-driven applications of AI, including acting recently in what is believed to be one of the first known end-to-end deployments of Generative AI in disclosure in live English High Court proceedings. The matter involved a substantial volume of documents as part of a complex disclosure exercise. By combining established disclosure methodologies with Generative AI workflows, the legal team achieved significant efficiencies while maintaining rigorous lawyer oversight and validation throughout the process. What makes that achievement particularly noteworthy is the role our Belfast team played in its delivery. Lawyers and legal technology professionals based in Belfast were integral to the design, implementation and validation of the workflow. Working alongside colleagues across the wider firm, they helped to design the review methodology, refine prompts, assess outputs, develop quality assurance processes, and ensure appropriate safeguards remained in place throughout the matter. The same transformation is taking place within transactional practices. AI is increasingly supporting contract review, due diligence and information extraction, allowing lawyers to spend more time focusing on negotiation strategy, client objectives and commercial risk.

A recent example is an engagement in which our Belfast team is supporting the development and rollout of an AI-powered contract management platform for a large international client, with our role encompassing the verification, testing and proactive human interrogation of prompts and outputs. In both disputes and transactions, what matters ultimately is not the technology itself, but the quality of the advice, the efficiency of the service and the confidence clients can place in the lawyers delivering it.

Alongside those traditional strengths, however, there is an additional capability becoming increasingly important: digital confidence.

For me, that is what modern legal innovation looks like in practice. It is about redesigning aspects of legal work so that human expertise and technology are deployed together, each where they add the greatest value.

The profession needs lawyers who can harness technology effectively while continuing to exercise the judgement, accountability and professional standards required by clients, regulators and the courts.

The Importance of Human Oversight

The Opportunity Ahead

One of the most important lessons emerging from the profession's experience of AI is that human expertise becomes more important, not less. The successful adoption of Generative AI depends on robust governance and oversight. At a practical level, this includes restricting use to approved technologies, maintaining clear controls around data and confidentiality, and ensuring lawyers remain accountable for reviewing and validating AI-generated outputs. Quality assurance processes, including sampling and testing, provide an additional layer of assurance and help ensure that technology supports, rather than replaces, professional judgement. In practice, this means understanding both the strengths and limitations of AI. It means questioning outputs rather than accepting them at face value. It means recognising when technology can assist and when legal judgement must take precedence. Critical thinking, professional scepticism and sound judgement are essential.

Future lawyers will need to understand what AI can and cannot do. They will need to know how to use technology effectively, but equally how to challenge, verify and interrogate outputs. AI literacy is becoming an important professional skill, but it must be coupled with analytical rigour and disciplined scepticism.

Northern Ireland has developed a strong reputation for legal innovation, digital delivery and technology-enabled legal services. The growth of AI presents another opportunity for the profession to build on those strengths. From Belfast, legal teams are already helping design and deliver some of the most advanced technology-enabled legal solutions being deployed across international matters. The recent Generative AI disclosure matter in the English High Court demonstrates that innovation is not something happening elsewhere. Northern Ireland is helping shape it. The qualities that will define excellent lawyers remain remarkably consistent with those that have always mattered: legal expertise, curiosity, judgement and critical thinking - now coupled with the digital confidence to work alongside increasingly sophisticated technologies. AI may change how we work. It does not change what makes a great lawyer.

The Skills Future Lawyers Will Need A question that is increasingly being asked across the profession is whether AI changes what firms look for in future lawyers. The answer is both yes and no. The core foundations of legal practice remain unchanged. Lawyers will continue to require strong legal analysis, sound judgement, effective drafting, excellent communication skills and the ability to build trusted client relationships.

‘ AI may change how we work. It does not change what makes a great lawyer.’ 27

The Writ Autumn 2026

AI in Legal Practice Managing Regulatory, Ethical and Professional Obligations The Law Society of Northern Ireland’s Professional Conduct Committee has reviewed and approved this article and endorses its publication.

Jack Flanagan Regulatory Conduct Officer Law Society of Northern Ireland The impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on legal practice cannot be overstated. Routine and administratively intensive tasks can now be completed more efficiently, generating cost and time savings for both clients and firms. While AI remains an emerging technology, firms are already realising significant benefits through its use in drafting, document review, summarisation, e-discovery and client communications. However, the use of AI does not alter the professional obligations owed by solicitors. The Society’s existing Regulations and Standards continue to apply in full, and practitioners should familiarise themselves with the Society’s recently published Guidance on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence which provides a framework for the responsible use of these technologies. The central compliance challenge is that, while AI may change the way legal work is produced, it does not change who is responsible for it. Solicitors remain accountable for the quality, accuracy and regulatory compliance of all AI-assisted work.

Personal responsibility and professional judgement Responsibility for compliance with professional obligations cannot be delegated to technology. Firms should exercise careful judgement when determining how and where AI may be used, taking account of the nature of the practice area, the sensitivity of the work involved, and the risks presented by the particular AI tool being used. This responsibility extends to the supervision of junior lawyers and support staff who may engage in so-called ‘ghost use’ of AI. Ghost use typically arises where employees utilise publicly available large language models, such as ChatGPT, without the firm’s knowledge, approval or appropriate oversight. Such practices create risks in relation to confidentiality, privilege, data protection and the accuracy of legal work. Senior solicitors and principals should therefore ensure that clear policies, training and supervisory procedures are in place to govern the use of AI across the firm. Ultimately, regardless of who used the technology or how the output was generated, solicitors remain accountable for the quality, accuracy and regulatory compliance of all AI-assisted work.

‘ AI may change the way legal work is produced, it does not change who is responsible for it.’ 28

Example A paralegal uses a public AI platform to complete a first draft of an affidavit and uploads case-specific and client information without the firm’s approval. Even if the resulting document appears accurate, the risks to confidentiality, privilege and data protection remain the responsibility of those charged with supervising the matter. The recent decision in Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC [2025] EWHC 1383 provides a useful illustration of how traditional professional obligations continue to apply in the AI era and demonstrates the potentially serious consequences of failing to properly supervise and verify AI-assisted work.

The Court considered instances where lawyers had relied upon authorities that were either entirely fictitious or did not support the propositions for which they were cited. While recognising the potential benefits of AI, the Court emphasised that solicitors and barristers remain under a professional duty to verify the accuracy of legal research by reference to authoritative sources before relying upon it. Importantly, the Court noted that this responsibility is no different from a lawyer’s obligation to supervise the work of a trainee or junior colleague. The judgment serves as a stark reminder that AI is a tool rather than a substitute for legal expertise and that failures to properly check AIgenerated content may result in referral to regulators, wasted costs orders, contempt proceedings or, in the most serious cases, criminal investigation.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Confidentiality, Privilege and Data Protection CONFIDENTIALITY While much of the discussion surrounding AI focuses on the risk of inaccurate outputs, the more significant compliance risk for many solicitor firms may lie in the information being inputted into AI systems. The Society’s Guidance distinguishes between ‘input risks’ and ‘output risks’, noting that input risks arise where information uploaded to an AI platform can create legal, regulatory or professional difficulties. In practice, this means that firms must be just as concerned with what they disclose to AI systems as they are with the quality of the responses generated. The duty of confidentiality remains one of the cornerstones of the solicitor-client relationship and is unaffected by the emergence of AI technologies. Solicitors must therefore satisfy themselves that their use of AI does not compromise confidential information belonging to clients or third parties. Many publicly available AI platforms retain prompts, uploaded documents and user interactions for service improvement and training purposes. As a consequence, information submitted to an AI system may not be automatically deleted and could potentially be accessed by service providers or reproduced in future outputs. For this reason, solicitors should exercise extreme caution before entering any case-specific, commercially sensitive or personally identifiable information into a publicly accessible AI platform. The distinction between public and private AI systems is therefore of particular importance. Public AI systems (such as ChatGPT) generally provide users with little control over how data is stored, processed or reused. It is recommended that solicitors opt out of any arrangements that permit the use of their data for training purposes where available. Private AI solutions may offer greater security and governance protections, but their use should not be assumed to be compliant simply because access is restricted. Firms should undertake appropriate due diligence before implementation, including reviewing privacy policies, security arrangements, retention periods and contractual provisions governing the use of firm and client data.

LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE Closely linked to confidentiality is the preservation of legal professional privilege. Firms should therefore establish clear internal policies prohibiting the upload of privileged communications, legal advice, counsel’s opinions and solicitor working papers to public AI systems. Clients should similarly be advised of the dangers associated with uploading solicitor correspondence or case materials to freely available AI tools, as any potential inadvertent disclosure may prejudice their legal position. For example, privilege may be jeopardised where a solicitor or client uploads confidential advice, evidence, or litigation strategy to a Public AI system. If the upload constitutes disclosure to a third party or places the information into a provider’s training or retention systems, a court may find that confidentiality has been lost and privilege waived. The consequences could include an obligation to disclose material that would otherwise have been privileged, increased litigation over privilege claims, regulatory issues, and prejudice to the client’s legal position. DATA PROTECTION Data protection presents a further layer of compliance obligations. Solicitors remain data controllers for the personal data they hold and cannot delegate responsibility for compliance to an AI provider. Firms should also consider whether a Data Protection Impact Assessment is required when introducing new AI technologies and ensure that any processing has a clear lawful basis under data protection legislation. Particular attention should be paid to transfers of data, retention policies and the firm’s ability to respond to data subject access requests.

Example Consider a solicitor acting for a client in a large commercial dispute. The client emails a large volume of correspondence and board minutes to the solicitor, who decides to use a free publicly available AI platform to summarise the documents and identify key issues. In doing so, the solicitor uploads documents containing commercially sensitive information, personal data relating to employees and communications which may attract legal professional privilege. Although the AI produces a useful summary, the solicitor has potentially disclosed confidential and privileged material to a third party and created data protection risks by transferring personal data to a platform whose storage, retention and training practices are unknown.

The appropriate response would be to avoid uploading such material to a public AI platform altogether. If AI assistance is required, the solicitor should first consider whether a secure, firm-approved private AI solution is available, ensure that appropriate contractual and data protection safeguards are in place, and where possible anonymise the information before processing. The solicitor should also satisfy themselves that the proposed use of AI is consistent with their duties of confidentiality, privilege and data protection before any client information is entered into the system.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Supervision, verification and governance The Society’s Guidance places significant emphasis on the need for effective supervision and control of AI within solicitor firms. While AI may be capable of producing sophisticated and persuasive outputs, it remains susceptible to errors, inaccuracies and so-called ‘hallucinations’. Accordingly, AI-generated content should never be accepted at face value. Solicitors must critically assess, verify and approve AI-generated outputs before they are relied upon, communicated to clients or filed with a court or tribunal. In Ayinde, the Court observed that freely available generative AI tools are not capable of conducting reliable legal research and may produce seemingly plausible but entirely incorrect responses, including fabricated case citations and quotations. Importantly, the Court emphasised that lawyers who choose to use AI for legal research have a professional duty to verify the accuracy of the material generated by reference to authoritative sources before relying upon it. Example A solicitor asks an AI platform to identify authorities supporting a client’s position in a contractual dispute. The AI generates several apparently relevant cases, complete with citations and quotations. Before relying upon those authorities in correspondence or court documents, the solicitor must independently verify that the cases exist and that the cited passages accurately reflect the relevant legal principles. Simply accepting the AI output because it appears authoritative would fall short of the standard expected of a competent practitioner. 30

A practical starting point for firms seeking to manage AI-related risks is the adoption of the Society’s accompanying Using AI Responsibly Checklist and AI Considerations for Principals Checklist. Together, these documents provide a useful governance framework, encouraging solicitors to consider issues such as staff training, verification of outputs, data protection, risk assessment, reporting obligations, record keeping and client communication before integrating AI into day-to-day practice. Rather than viewing AI compliance as a standalone exercise, firms should consider embedding these checklists within existing risk management, supervision and quality assurance procedures. Doing so can help demonstrate that appropriate safeguards have been implemented and that AI is being deployed in a manner consistent with professional obligations and regulatory expectations.

Other ethical considerations While discussion of AI within the legal profession generally focuses on issues of confidentiality, accuracy and professional responsibility, firms should also be mindful of the environmental impact of AI technologies. Large language models require substantial computing power both during training and operation, resulting in significant energy consumption and associated carbon emissions. Although the efficiencies generated by AI may reduce paper usage and administrative burdens, firms may increasingly be expected to consider whether the use of AI aligns with their wider Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) commitments. As clients and other stakeholders place greater emphasis on sustainability, responsible AI governance may come to encompass not only legal and ethical considerations but environmental ones as well.

Concluding remarks AI may significantly alter the delivery of legal services, but it does not alter the fundamental regulatory principle that solicitors are accountable for the work produced in their name. The challenge for firms is therefore not simply adopting AI, but doing so in a manner that preserves professional judgment, client confidentiality and public confidence in the administration of justice. The Society’s Guidance makes clear that the objective is not to discourage the use of AI, but to ensure it is deployed in a manner consistent with existing professional obligations. Firms that invest in AI literacy, robust policies and effective oversight will be best placed to realise the benefits of this technology while managing its risks. Ultimately, AI should be viewed not as a replacement for legal expertise, but as a valuable tool that can enhance the delivery of legal services when used responsibly and professionally.

‘ AI-generated content should never be accepted at face value.’

The Writ Autumn 2026

AI is Moving Fast. Can the Law Keep Up? Evelyn McClafferty Communications & Engagement Manager IRLI

But hold on a second. Wasn’t it only a short while ago that many of us were deeply uncomfortable with the idea of technology accessing our personal information? Now we are voluntarily feeding AI systems extraordinary amounts of personal and professional data — and sometimes paying for the privilege. I use AI too. It is fast, cheap, and constantly available. It sounds almost like I’m describing a takeaway: convenient, speedy and, in the moment, satisfying. But at what cost? For Irish Rule of Law International’s podcast, The Justice Edit, I interviewed Alia Al Ghussain of Amnesty Tech about the need to put human rights at the centre of technological development. And in May of this year, Amnesty International warned that the development of major generative AI systems raises serious human rights concerns, including around privacy, discrimination, and freedom of expression.

AI is hurtling through our lives like a thunderous avalanche. An elderly friend of mine, who is 83, tells me about learning the tax implications of her family’s inheritance from ‘Chat GT’, as she calls it. Other friends proudly tell me about their preferred AI tools — Gemini, Claude — and how much they know about them. ‘They’re more intelligent,’ I’m told. ‘They remember your history.’

More recently, I spoke with International Bar Association (IBA) President Claudio Visco about AI and the legal profession. In June, the IBA launched a dedicated Artificial Intelligence Institute to examine the implications of AI and promote its responsible governance in alignment with the rule of law and fundamental principles of justice. It is a worthy and necessary development. But part of me wonders: why are we already playing considerable catch-up?

The question is therefore no longer whether lawyers will use AI. They already are. It is whether our laws, professional standards, and understanding of the technology are developing quickly enough to govern how we use it. AI is here to stay. I don’t believe we should fear it. But convenience should never come at the expense of scrutiny. The avalanche is already moving. The question for the law is whether it can keep up.

Which brings me to the law. Isn’t that precisely what law is supposed to do — establish boundaries, protect rights, and provide accountability when those boundaries are crossed? For lawyers, these questions are no longer theoretical. AI is already being used for legal research, drafting, and contract analysis. And that is unlikely to be the limit of it. The potential is enormous. But so are the risks. 31

The Writ Autumn 2026

Human rights in the era of AI Fernanda Hermosilla Policy and Research Officer NIHRC Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly shaping everyday life. More than a technical tool, its development and use raise significant ethical, social, political and environmental questions. Embedding human rights into the AI lifecycle can help ensure innovation is both trustworthy and sustainable.

Human rights risks of AI AI can affect virtually every internationally recognised human right, and well-documented harms are already occurring globally. One growing concern is the proliferation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes, which can cause serious psychological harm, harassment and reputational damage. This issue predominantly affects women and girls. An expanding industry now profits from AI ‘nudifying’ tools that enable this abuse. As a form of image-based sexual violence, the consequences for victims may be lifelong. States must therefore protect victims' rights to physical and psychological integrity under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as well as their right not to be subjected to ill-treatment under Article 3 ECHR. Deepfakes may also restrict freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR where fear of being targeted discourages participation in public and online life. NI is no stranger to this issue, with MLAs and others having been targeted in the past. AI is also fuelling misinformation. Accessible and increasingly sophisticated AI tools are accelerating the creation and spread of false or harmful content online, while making information harder to verify. This includes misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ+, antisemitic, Islamophobic, racist and xenophobic material.

The risk can be heightened by engagementdriven recommendation algorithms that amplify inflammatory content and can drive radicalisation. NI has experienced the offline consequences of this issue firsthand, with three consecutive years of racist disorder and violence. AI and its supporting infrastructure, such as data centres, have also been linked to environmental harm. Key concerns include energy and water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, reliance on critical minerals, and electronic waste. This resourceintensive infrastructure can put a strain on local communities already struggling with droughts, pollution and rising cost of living and hinder the UK’s net zero targets. Bias is one of the most significant human rights risks, as AI systems can reproduce and amplify existing inequalities embedded in training data. This is particularly worrying when public authorities use AI to make decisions affecting fundamental rights, such as determining entitlement to benefits, assessing age in asylum claims, informing criminal justice decisions, prioritising healthcare, and processing immigration applications. Biased datasets can lead to error, unfairness and unlawful discrimination based on protected characteristics. Article 14 ECHR protects against discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights. Yet, AI-driven discrimination can be difficult to challenge where individuals are unaware that AI has been used, or where the reasons for a decision are opaque.

The ‘black box’ problem Even where individuals know they have been affected by AI, identifying unfairness, establishing liability and obtaining a remedy can be challenging. Increasing complexity and autonomy of AI makes it hard to understand how decisions are reached and who is responsible when things go wrong. Article 13 ECHR requires remedies to be accessible and effective in law and practice, capable of addressing the substance of a complaint and providing appropriate redress. AI systems can complicate this, as processes are often opaque, even for their own developers, a phenomenon known as ‘the black box’ problem. This is further complicated by AI systems' complex supply chains. When harm occurs, it might not be clear whether the source is design, training data, deployment or human oversight. Even when information about the system is available, individuals, regulators, and courts may struggle to understand and act on this highly technical information, creating additional barriers to access to justice. These challenges are particularly significant when public authorities rely on AI-assisted decision-making. Under the Human Rights Act, public authorities have a duty to ensure their decisions are ECHR compatible. Yet they might struggle to show compliance where the reasoning behind an AIgenerated decision cannot be meaningfully explained due to proprietary models, opaque processes, or limited technical expertise. This has serious implications for who can access support services.

‘ AI systems must be safe for fundamental rights by design, not be deployed until they are, and be retired where unacceptable risks emerge.’

The Writ Autumn 2026

The risk is amplified by automation bias and overreliance. As AI systems become more capable, decision-makers may increasingly defer to algorithmic outputs rather than exercise critical judgement, making errors and unfairness harder to uncover and challenge. Meaningful transparency is not simply a technical specification. It is essential for accountability, procedural fairness and the effective protection of human rights. Protecting human rights in the age of AI is also an issue for businesses. The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights require human rights due diligence to identify, prevent and mitigate AI-related risks, while ensuring transparency, accountability and access to remedy. This may include assessing risks such as algorithmic discrimination, privacy violations, environmental harm, child safety concerns, and labour exploitation within AI supply chains. States must provide effective legal safeguards that promote responsible corporate conduct.

The importance of AI governance: human rights by design AI governance refers to the rules, standards and processes that shape how AI systems are designed, deployed and used. Approaches vary. The EU has adopted the AI Act, the world's first comprehensive AI regulation, while the UK has favoured a sector-based, ‘pro-innovation’ approach informed by non-statutory principles and relying on existing laws and regulatory guidance. Governance is ultimately about priorities: what an AI system is designed to optimise, whose interests it serves, and what risks are considered acceptable. Purely marketdriven AI governance set to optimise innovation may not be effective in identifying and preventing human rights harm. Human rights effects are often an afterthought. AI developers should embed human rights safeguards throughout the AI lifecycle, from design, data collection and training, to deployment, monitoring, and retirement. AI systems must be safe for fundamental rights by design, not be deployed until they are, and be retired where unacceptable risks emerge.

Additionally, human oversight must be meaningful rather than symbolic. Individuals developing and deploying AI systems should exercise independent judgement and remain accountable for decisions and outcomes. Important governance decisions are often made by the organisations that design AI systems, rather than by states or regulators. Significant market power is concentrated in a small number of companies that control data, computing infrastructure and technical expertise. This creates risks that certain commercial interests, cultural assumptions and perspectives become embedded in systems used globally. Effective governance requires broader democratic participation and meaningful representation of affected communities.

AI governance in NI The recently published NI draft Artificial Intelligence Strategy highlights AI’s potential to improve public services, drive innovation, improve decision-making and boost productivity and economic growth. It also acknowledges that AI can only be trustworthy if used responsibly, safely, and in the public interest. However, it currently has limited emphasis on human rights protection. The AI Strategy offers a crucial opportunity to embed human rights as a core component of AI governance in NI. Public procurement is a particularly important governance tool in NI. When public bodies procure AI systems, they effectively act as de facto regulators by setting the objectives, safeguards and accountability mechanisms those systems are expected to meet. Procurement contracts can embed transparency, fairness, and human rights protections from the outset. The Human Rights in Public Procurement Policy Note 05/21 requires NI government departments to apply a human rights-based approach to procurement exercises.

While not AI-specific, these rules will equally apply to AI procurement. However, effective implementation might require enhanced technical expertise and capacitybuilding among procurement professionals. AI governance in NI will also be influenced by its unique position between UK and EU regulatory frameworks. Discussions are ongoing between the UK and EU about whether the EU AI Act should be added to the Windsor Framework provisions that continue to apply in NI.

AI for the wellbeing of humanity At the latest AI Impact Summit, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk asked a question we don’t often think about: What is AI for? This revolutionary technology has enormous potential to improve lives and protect the environment, but only if human rights remain at its core. AI presents significant opportunities, and it's already being used to support humanitarian responses, climate resilience, accessibility and language preservation. In NI, it is being piloted to reduce teachers’ workload and support clinical diagnosis. It could also help with translation and enhance access to public services in other languages. The draft NI AI Strategy highlights several AI-enabled projects aimed at improving public services across NI. Legal professionals have an important role to play in using their expertise to ensure that AI is developed, procured, deployed, and regulated in ways that uphold fundamental rights, accountability, and access to justice. Decisions about how AI is governed will shape the future exercise of fundamental rights protection. Ensuring that governance is transparent, inclusive and grounded in human rights is therefore not simply a technical challenge, but a democratic one.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Cybercrime

Reflecting on 10 years engagement with the legal sector Samuel Kinkaid Regional Cyber Protect Officer PSNI This month marks my completion of 30 years in policing and retirement, having spent the past 12 years with the PSNI Cyber Crime Centre. Those with long memories may recall that my first engagements with the legal sector came in the form of joint presentations delivered with Maggie Hunter almost 10 years ago. In those early LSNI CPD events, the principal cyber issue concerning lawyers was unauthorised access to email accounts, and the risks this created for client data and financial transactions.

Looking back now, the risk of client data being accessed and conveyancing funds being redirected may appear obvious but in terms of exploitation, the vulnerabilities exploited by online criminals at that time were equally obvious, such as a lack of multi-factor authentication (MFA), the use of free email accounts, and phishing-based social engineering. Over recent years, many within the local legal sector have taken proactive steps to minimise the risks posed by cybercrime. The adoption of Cyber Essentials by members remains the most effective means of establishing a baseline for cybersecurity, demonstrating measures taken to clients, and avoiding or at least identifying, common cyberattacks.

Support from partners such as the Northern Ireland Cyber Security Centre (NICSC) has been vital in raising awareness in this area and the recent appointment of Simon Whittaker as an IASME Pathways Technical Director in Northern Ireland will, no doubt, further raise the profile of Cyber Essentials. The rollout of the Society’s Call, Check & Confirm guidance provided a consistent approach for members to take and alongside practical measures such as cybersecurity warnings on emails and websites, this helped raise clients’ awareness of the potential misuse of email to divert funds and undoubtedly prevented the loss of substantial sums.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Current threats As I prepare to hand over to my successor, the obvious question in regard to the legal sector is: what cyber threats currently face members? Undoubtedly, the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) is considerable. It reduces the level of skill required to engage in cybercrime and automates processes such as identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities and carrying out phishing attacks. Indeed, the negative headlines often associated with it could create the impression that organisations are now dealing with ‘Skynet’ as a threat, rather than criminals. However, despite the rise of AI and the development of other technologies in recent years, my engagement with the legal sector during the past 12 months has been almost exclusively focused on the issue raised back in those early CPD days: unauthorised access to work accounts. While often enabled by AI tools, this reflects the willingness of criminals to utilise new tools to commit cybercrime in the same way as high-end car thieves now use technology to steal keyless cars. Despite the increasing use of MFA and the adoption of recommended standards, it is important to remember that no one can provide a 100% guarantee that an online account, such as an email account, cannot be compromised and client data accessed.

This is why the term ‘resilience’ is now commonplace in advice issued by bodies such as the NCSC. Yes, a responsible law firm should take all recommended steps to secure corporate accounts; however, the key question is whether, should the worst happen, the firm is in a position to detect a breach, engage relevant partners, respond effectively, reduce the impact on the organisation and its clients, and learn lessons from the incident. In two recent reports from the legal sector, clients had been phished by criminals as a direct result of result of conveyancing data being accessed. While both firms had taken steps to minimise the risk of this type of crime taking place and raise client awareness in advance of the risk, to their credit, it was the response to the incidents concerned and willingness to engage with law enforcement that helped disrupt the ongoing efforts to have clients redirect funds. Engagements of this nature are vital if the police and the legal sector are to adapt to changes in how these types of attacks are carried out and where possible, disrupt ongoing attempts to target clients. In terms of how criminals gain account access and exploit client data, recent incidents highlight a number of points firms should consider when looking to prevent this type of crime and prepare for any occurrence.

• The use of MFA is not a guarantee that accounts are secure from unauthorised access. Firms should continually consider the latest recommended security measures. As reflected in NCSC guidance and in steps announced by Microsoft, passkeys are now regarded as a security measure that organisations should adopt where possible. • Where accounts are protected by passwords, steps should be taken to adopt phishing resistant MFA to help reduce the risk of attackers gaining access. • Attackers continue to use tried and tested methods to impersonate compromised firms. If they can register a ‘.co.uk’ or ‘.ie’ version of a ‘.com’ domain, they will. Members should review the domain names they hold and take appropriate steps to ensure that obvious, unregistered alternatives cannot be used by others. Where incidents are reported to law enforcement, domain name suspension is an area in which the PSNI and its partners can assist (and in terms of the legal sector in 2026 we have a 100% success rate). Our ability to assist in areas such as this is, however, dependent on incidents being reported and on the provision of the information domain registrars require when considering suspension. • Recent attacks have demonstrated both the ease with which lookalike domain names can be registered and the difficulties legitimate firms can encounter when seeking to have them suspended. In hindsight, discrepancies in email addresses may be easy to identify. However, in the rnidst of a conveyancing transaction, would a client notice that the letter ‘m’ in an address had been replaced by ‘rn’, as in the aforementioned word ‘midst’? I would encourage all firms to submit incident details to Report Fraud (reportfraud.police.uk) in the knowledge that PSNI Cyber Protect do view these reports and will support any local law firm with elements such as domain name disruption. Direct contact with PSNI Cyber Protect can also be made via cyberprotect@psni.police.uk.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Blurring the lines Real or fake in a digital age? Paul Tweed Founder WP Tweed & Co The existence of the ability to generate an AI image of a human to the extent of making it almost, if not entirely, impossible to tell the difference between the ‘real’ human and the AI-generated image has been common knowledge for some time. Indeed, when an expert in the field showed me images of two newsreaders on a split screen, I repeatedly misidentified the AI version as the actual human form in attempting to distinguish the two examples. This led me to realise that AI had been progressing even more rapidly than I previously thought, to the extent that an AI image can be made to appear even more human than the actual human. The mind therefore boggles as to how this development is likely to impact on every sensitive issue facing media lawyers and society at large, from fake ads to the influencing of political elections. In the past, one of my challenges as a lawyer, difficult enough as it then was, had been to take on social media platforms when the image of a well-known personality had been utilised to falsely promote some product or other, with a view to fraudulently extracting monies from unsuspecting individuals in the process. Most people either realised the fraud from the outset or received confirmation from the personality concerned that it was not them, and that these fraudulent advertisements should be ignored. In some cases, we were able to successfully take legal action against a platform, encouraging at least limited improvement in their reaction and stance towards fake advertisements.

However, the advent in recent years of the AI-generated image has radically changed media lawyers’ ability to challenge Big Tech and other platforms Given that it takes international legal systems several years to facilitate a substantive court hearing, and governments are continuing to ‘talk the talk rather than walk the walk’, pragmatic intervention and regulation of AI has been slow in coming, with ‘too little, too late’ being somewhat of an understatement.

‘The liar’s dividend’ An initial, and significant, problem posed by AI, alongside potential reputational damage itself, is the increasing erosion of trust in digital media. The legal system has, historically, relied upon documentary, photographic and video evidence as a somewhat objective means of establishing facts. AI-enabled deepfake technology threatens to undermine that assumption entirely. In circumstances where a convincing video or image can be generated in an instant, the question deviates from whether an image is genuine, to whether any image can safely be presumed genuine at all. This phenomenon has been described by academics as the ‘liar's dividend’, where the mere existence of deepfake technology allows parties to dismiss genuine evidence as fabricated. A number of well-known individuals have successfully utilised this concept to their advantage in the previous months and years, in both the legal and public relation spheres. The result really is a double-edged sword: fabricated material becomes more convincing, while authentic material becomes easier to discredit as ‘AI-generated’. Courts, regulators and litigants may increasingly find themselves tangled up in costly disputes requiring expert forensic analysis to simply establish whether the basic material at the heart of a case can be trusted.

Both Section 230 and the E-Commerce Directive afford immunity to online services such as social media platforms with respect to third-party content generated by their users, subject to certain qualifications.

Identifying a defendant When considering legal action against an AI platform for its output, the initial procedural question is to determine whether generative AI creates new content, which we media lawyers argue must surely be the case. If so, the obvious conclusion should be that these platforms fall outside the protections afforded under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the US, and the EU-wide E-Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC1, thereby finally levelling the playing field for the more traditional media. However, if this is the case, AI raises a fundamental legal question that legislators have yet to answer satisfactorily: who is responsible when an artificial intelligence system causes harm? Traditional legal principles are based upon human agency and decision-making; i.e., that liability generally arises because an individual publishes a statement, commits a negligent act or knowingly participates in wrongful conduct. Generative AI complicates this longstanding concept. Even if legislators and regulators address the issue of whether AI-generated content is indeed new content for the purposes of establishing liability under the laws of defamation, who bears the responsibility? Is it the developer who created the AI model, the company that deployed it, the user who generated the content or the platform that distributed it? While the technology itself cannot be ‘sued’, the current legal framework creates significant obstacles for claimants seeking an effective remedy, when one struggles to even narrow down a single potential correct defendant. Legislators, regulators, and indeed, those behind the development and deployment of such AI models, have, as of yet, failed to offer a straightforward answer.

FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO

The Writ Autumn 2026

FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO FAKE VIDEO

Difficulties of Regulation The sheer scale and impact of public opinion in the modern era where views and vitriol are disseminated globally within seconds is a crucial and fundamental factor in determining a reputation. In the past decade, social media platforms have continued to inject speed and ferocity into online venom, but even in the absence of effective legislative control, public opinion has been largely in favour of preserving some degree of moderation. This had encouraged various pronouncements by the platforms that they were working towards removing some of the more excessive, abusive conduct. However, AI chatbots and search engines most certainly do not appear to have prioritised any such controls, often ignoring human and ethical considerations, and continue to scrape their information from the bowels of the internet and present their AI-generated findings as matters of fact within nanoseconds. The Australian Government has taken firm and decisive action in relation to some of the more serious issues being created by the platforms, in particular by restricting access to social media for the under-16s. Other countries have been taking the opposite approach in the name of free speech.

While the UK Government has appeared to adopt a middle course, there has been little sign of effective enforcement by the designated regulator, Ofcom, and this is against a background of many years of prevarication on the part of successive governments. Indeed, both the UK and Ireland appear to be more concerned about upsetting the Big Tech platforms which provide significant economic and employment benefits to local communities. At the same time, Mark Zuckerberg and other tech entrepreneurs are focusing on investing in superintelligence and expanding AI capabilities generally, while continuing to robustly push back against any effective form of online regulation.

‘David vs Goliath’? Consequently, the root of the problem, insofar as the platforms and the rapid development of AI are concerned, is the enormous financial and commercial strength that Big Tech has ruthlessly utilised to not only keep ahead of their rivals but also to browbeat any dissenters and resist any attempts to seek legal redress through a court system that was never intended to deal with the sheer volume and speed of dissemination. Recent Irish litigation I have been involved in has taken years to reach a resolution, despite the very real idiom that ‘time is of the essence’ when it comes to dealing with reputational damage.

Furthermore, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an injunction when the courts normally take the view that damages should be the appropriate remedy. Seeking details of anonymous bad actors is also a financial challenge given that the proceedings in support of a Norwich Pharmacal Order, a type of disclosure order that compels a third party such as a social media platform to share the user details of the anonymous account, can run to a cost exposure of between £20,000-£30,000. This is because the moving party – the Plaintiff – remains liable for both sets of costs regardless of the outcome. While procedures have been introduced in the Republic of Ireland which are intended to make such applications less expensive and onerous, there is nothing similar on the horizon in Northern Ireland, or indeed in the rest of the UK. Another factor that has come to the fore in recent times is that it is no longer only the rich and famous who have come under attack from online trolls and cyber bullies. Increasingly, individuals from all walks of life have found themselves at the receiving end of reputational harm or online fraud. We can only anticipate that this will continue to increase as AI models produce more realistic output, become easier for the general public to use, and more accessible to potential bad actors.

Summary The advances in AI are making it extremely difficult to differentiate between truth and lies, or between the genuine article and fraudulent misrepresentation. In the absence of speedy and contemporaneous legislative protection, it is increasingly being left up to the individual to decide whether to risk the family home in taking on these Big Tech goliaths, whose share price is barely affected by a multimillion-dollar award or fine.

This disparity of resources between individual claimants and multinational technology companies is unprecedented and should indeed be troubling to a legal system designed to provide effective remedies to harm suffered. A private individual deciding to take a case forward may be faced with legal costs capable of jeopardising their financial security, while the corporation on the opposite side of the dispute possesses teams of lawyers and resources measured in billions rather than thousands.

The danger with such defendants is that the legal rights afforded to all citizens – including the right to protect their good name and their privacy – may become academic except to those wealthy enough to enforce them. While media lawyers will continue to fight for their clients, and draw blood, only time will tell whether the victories achieved are too little and too late.

The Writ Autumn 2026

AI, Deepfakes, and the new frontier of reputation law Olivia O’Kane Partner Lewis Silkin Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the media landscape at extraordinary speed. The opportunities it offers are considerable, but so is the reality that our existing legal frameworks were never designed for AI, and the profession itself must navigate the revolution it is bringing to our day-to-day legal practice. For solicitors advising on reputation, privacy, intellectual property and media disputes, this transformation presents particularly novel challenges. From deepfake videos to AI chatbots generating grossly defamatory statements about real individuals, how defamation law applies to machine-generated content will likely be determined by the courts before long. Northern Ireland occupies a distinctive position. Unlike England and Wales, we have not adopted the Defamation Act 2013 and its ‘serious harm’ threshold; our law operates largely under common law and the Defamation Act 2022. Intellectual property rights are territorial and enforced country by country, and AI adds complexity, with the EU AI Act requiring general-purpose AI model providers to publish a summary of training content. AI-generated content’s cross-border, instantaneous nature strains any single jurisdiction’s law.

Deepfakes: The Fabrication of Reality and the Dangers to Society Deepfake technology—AI-generated synthetic video, audio or images depicting real individuals saying or doing things they never did—represents perhaps the most visceral threat to reputation in the digital age.

Ofcom research published in 20241 found that 43% of UK adults believed they had encountered a deepfake within six months, yet only 9% felt confident identifying one. A fabricated video of a solicitor admitting to misusing client monies can circulate to thousands within seconds, causing catastrophic reputational and financial damage before correction is possible. The legal challenges are formidable. While courts have long accepted that defamation can occur through images and innuendo, the sophistication of modern deepfakes raises novel questions about whether the ordinary reasonable viewer would recognise fabricated content—and who should be treated as its publisher. Identifying the originator also presents acute difficulties: AI generation tools are freely available and can be used anonymously, with content hosted overseas and shared across encrypted messaging. For a plaintiff, identifying the responsible party, establishing jurisdiction, and obtaining effective relief are often considerable obstacles, particularly where urgent interim injunctions are needed but no identifiable defendant can be served.

AI-Generated Text and the Liability Gap Beyond deepfakes, large language models (LLMs) pose a broader challenge. AI chatbots have been documented producing false and damaging statements about real, identifiable individuals—attributing criminal convictions to innocent people or fabricating allegations of professional misconduct. These are not edge cases but are a well-documented feature of generative AI ‘hallucination’. The central question for defamation law is: who is the publisher? Potential responsibility runs from the developer who built and trained the model, to the platform that hosts or distributes it, to the end user

Deepfake Defences: Mitigating the Harms of Deceptive Deepfakes §14

who prompted or republished the output— each of whom may argue they neither intended nor foresaw the content. Whether an AI platform can avail of a defence is inherently fact sensitive and remains untested in Northern Ireland. Practitioners will increasingly need to ask in what circumstances, and against which supply chain actor, liability should attach— engaging vicarious liability, causation, negligence (potentially including for not using AI), negligent misstatement, deceit, and defamation. Where a human incorporates LLM-generated words into their own publication, this will generally amount to publication, and defences such as innocent dissemination are unlikely to be available. The position is more complex without human review: a person is a ‘publisher’ if they have participated in, or authorised, publication, and a platform acting as a passive conduit will generally not be one. However, deploying an AI model to publish a defamatory statement, even without human review, is also likely to be a defamatory publication for which those who own, operate, or control the model could be liable. For legal professionals, the practical reality is complex. AI developers may be based in jurisdictions with opposite laws, and enforcing Northern Ireland judgments against overseas AI companies presents obvious challenges. Even identifying which AI system generated content may require costly, labourintensive forensic analysis and discovery. A vivid illustration of how liability can disperse across an AI supply chain emerged in July 2026, when one AI platform disclosed that an autonomous AI agent, deployed internally for a cybersecurity evaluation with its safety classifiers disabled, escaped its test environment and attacked another platform, executing over 17,600 automated actions via third-party software vulnerabilities before access was cut off.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Though considered a cybersecurity rather than defamation incident, it reflects the same structural problem afflicting AI-generated defamatory content: responsibility disperses among developer, host, integrator and deployer. California’s Assembly Bill 316 prevents developers, modifiers or users from arguing the AI acted autonomously as a defence, and the EU’s Product Liability Directive (EU) 2024/2853, to be transposed by 9 December 2026, means AI litigation in Europe reverses the burden of proof and eases the evidential burden on plaintiffs who need establish that the product likely caused the damage, the defect and its causal link to the damage are plausible. This underscores why the ‘who is the publisher’ question may not be answered by reference to a single defendant and why we will need to grapple with the same multi-party attribution problem now being tested in the cybersecurity and regulatory context.

Executive Impersonation: Reputation as a Vector for Fraud A particularly alarming development is the use of AI voice-cloning and deepfake video to impersonate senior business figures. AIgenerated audio mimicking a chief executive’s voice to authorise fraudulent payments is well documented globally, but AI impersonation is increasingly also used for reputational attack and market manipulation—fabricated video statements attributed to executives could move share prices, mislead customers, and defame CEOs. An AI-generated clip showing a CEO apparently making a damaging admission or making defamatory statements can be confusing and complex. A defamation analysis, asking whether words would lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, must be adapted to apply to a context where the entire premise is fabricated. Where the purpose is market manipulation or commercial fraud rather than ‘only’ reputational harm, clients may find that fraud, passing off, or financial regulation offer additional effective remedies as well as defamation. Solicitors should also consider the Online Safety Act 2023 framework and Ofcom’s role in securing rapid content removal.

Northern Ireland’s Distinctive Position (a) No Serious Harm Threshold Northern Ireland has not adopted the ‘serious harm’ threshold applying in England and Wales. Plaintiffs face no equivalent preliminary hurdle, making this a more hospitable forum for AI-related claims where harm is diffuse across multiple outputs. (b) Cross-Border Jurisdiction That advantage is complicated by AI’s cross-border nature: analysis must consider where content was accessed, where reputation subsists, and whether Northern Ireland is the appropriate forum for a globally operating AI system. (c) The Case for Targeted Reform There is a growing case for legislative clarity in the UK on platform accountability, the status of AI developers and supply chain actors as publishers, and transparency around rapid AI content takedown mechanisms. This reform imperative sits against a fastmoving regulatory backdrop. The EU AI Act requires AI systems interacting with natural persons to disclose that fact; its deepfake disclosure duties became applicable from 2 August 2026. Ireland has given domestic effect to that framework through the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Act 2026, establishing the AI Office of Ireland - Oifig IS na hÉireann. In the UK, the Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Bill [HL] would establish an AI Authority for the UK including Northern Ireland, though its prospects remain uncertain. Ofcom was among the first regulators to investigate a platform over an AI chatbot creating demeaning sexual deepfakes of real people, but confirmed the standalone chatbot falls outside the Online Safety Act’s scope— illustrating the platform-accountability gap and the importance of litigation and access to justice.

Legal Tech: Opportunity and Obligation The challenges AI poses for the profession are significant, and I have already experienced the impact on substantive law as well as in practice generally in the context of misuse of private information, data protection, defamation and intellectual property law.

AI offers genuine benefits—faster review, more consistent output, and capacity for otherwise uneconomic volume work—so for Northern Ireland firms in a costconscious market, pressure to adopt AI will only intensify. However, the potential risks must be identified and mitigated. Lawyers have an obligation to exercise reasonable skill and care, which extends to their usage of AI. A lawyer could be found negligent for using AI inappropriately, selecting an unsuitable model, or failing to validate its outputs—and, equally, for failing to use AI where a competent practitioner would have done so. AI ‘hallucination’—where generative AI produces fabricated case citations or inaccurate propositions with convincing confidence—demands serious caution. Courts have sanctioned lawyers who submitted unverified AI-generated research, and the professional duty of competence requires that AI output be scrutinised as a solicitor would scrutinise a trainee’s work. Ethical concerns are equally pressing. Client confidentiality must be considered before any data is input into a third-party AI system, particularly cloud-based tools where data may be processed or stored beyond the solicitor’s control and possibly processed extra-territorially in breach of data protection obligations. The solicitor remains personally responsible for advice given regardless of AI’s contribution, and training must adapt so junior lawyers learn to verify AI output critically.

Conclusion Artificial intelligence is a present reality for the legal profession, both as a source of novel disputes and as a tool reshaping legal services. Northern Ireland’s defamation, privacy and intellectual property laws, whilst robust in many respects, face genuine gaps when confronted with AI-generated content, anonymous deepfakes, and fragmented liability chains, requiring reform. As the profession embraces AI, we must maintain the standards of competence, diligence, and client protection that define our obligations, whilst harnessing technology’s genuine efficiencies. The law has always evolved to meet new challenges. The pace of AI development demands that this evolution be urgent, informed, and practical. 39

The Writ Autumn 2026

Law & Technology at Queen’s University Belfast

Educating lawyers to shape the profession Dr Tomás McInerney Lecturer Law & Technology Queen's University Belfast AI technology is now well and truly pervasive and it is clearly of concern for legal practice, training, and research. The impact is felt at all levels. In the workplace (how long will I have a job?), in the way we work (what technology should I adopt to stay relevant and competitive?), and in our analysis of other people’s work (was this AI-generated?). There is a real conundrum here in terms of how legal education and practice ought to reckon with this incremental but incredibly quick evolution of the legal profession. In the School of Law in Queen’s, we have been running a master’s programme in Law & Technology for what is now entering its seventh year, established by my colleagues John Morison and Ciarán O’Kelly. There are two core features to the programme that ensure our students are inoculated, to some extent, against these potential effects. The first pertains to the ability to utilise new software. The second is about understanding the role of the legal professional in this new technologicallyenabled world of legal practice. These features cut across the same central theme: ensuring lawyers are equipped with the skills necessary to shape the evolution of legal practice.

The former involves cultivating an understanding of what new technology can do for the student of law – a form of technical literacy. This involves educating students about how technology can enhance the learning process. Experimentation with state-of-the-art AI systems, for example, allows you to identify patterns – the repetitive language and peculiar turns of phrase (see Reddit users’ humorous thoughts on the incessant use of terms like ‘load-bearing’ – a term ubiquitous in software development – by Anthropic’s Claude model. Might these terms begin to creep into legal submissions?), and to understand more concretely AI’s limitations. New technology also shapes professional practice, for better or worse, in day-today legal work. One of the most topical concerns is the ‘hallucination’ – the propensity of AI systems to fabricate information. This is often an issue tied to poor understanding of how the technology works. Having at least a rudimentary understanding of how the technology is developed, its capabilities and shortcomings, and the design choices embedded in the final product that we interact with as users, provides a helpful understanding of where these systems are likely to err, and how to probe their accuracy.

The second is the grander vision which has been at the centre of the Law & Technology programme since it was established: the impact of technology on the profession and the role of the law in a new technoenabled world of legal practice. This involves understanding the intertwining of public and private power which has undoubtedly intensified in recent years and was particularly accelerated during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is here that we aim to reflect on the not-so-neutral permeations of new technology: how, for example, does ChatGPT or Claude acting as a commercial product keep us hooked and engaged (the sometimes useful, mostly irritating followups), why it may feign confidence, or why words appear one at a time, and how these ‘characteristics’ cascade down to influence legal work. We also dissect the convoluted issues of technology and governance. There is always a new and exciting context in which to explore the perennial tension between technological development and the governing of new technology. Take the influence of ‘Claude’s Constitution’ for example (can this be considered law in any meaningful sense, or pre-emptive, selfaggrandising self-regulation?). Whether we like it or not, it plays a significant role in shaping – governing – the AI-generated information around us on LinkedIn, X, in emails, and elsewhere. The obvious question is who ought to be writing these rules, and the answer is not much more reassuring when we turn to the formal arrangements.

The Writ Autumn 2026

The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act now requires those deploying AI systems to support the development of AI literacy among their staff, and this obligation may affect practitioners here doing EU-facing work in the Republic. In this light we encourage our students to reflect on what all of this means for the evolution of the lawyer, and what skills they may need in the years ahead. It is plausible, as these new technologies are rolled out evermore widely, that legal work may crystallise around technical issues of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, among many others – the new bread and butter of legal work. Law firms are not only advisers in this context and may be exposed themselves. Harvey for example, one of the most widely used legal AI tools, is built on another company’s technology (OpenAI, whose technology recently, unbeknownst to them, hacked into another company). Such incidents are bound to shake Harvey’s users. What is essential is that a new generation of lawyers are equipped with the language necessary to collaborate with their technical colleagues on issues that cut across the increasingly amorphous boundaries of technology and law.

It is not that technologically inclined lawyers will replace senior or less interested ones. In fact, it has never been more important that the institutional knowledge of experienced legal professionals is shared with those students of law who have been trained during this latest AI boom (many of whom will miss out on the soft skills required in the practising world). There is a need for both the techno-aware lawyer and those with the institutional knowhow. There is, perhaps, a more existential question: tech behemoths have an increasing say about the evolution of legal practice, making decisions about what is technically capable and what good lawyering ought to be. Lawyers have a huge stake in this discussion of course. There is a need that both the lawyers of the future and those with the deep institutional knowhow act as a counterbalance to the potential degradation of the profession. This requires collaboration across multiple generations of lawyering. Legal practitioners must also have a say in the development of governance and regulatory mechanisms, and it should not be left to the overseas corporations that develop the technology to determine what is and is not permissible. Governance structures must be developed by those with an intimate knowledge of the profession, and who understand the nuances of the jurisdiction (and such nuances are particularly nuanced in Northern Ireland).

Indeed, this is the ethos at the centre of our latest research project in the School of Law which is focused on the codevelopment of guidelines on AI usage in the Northern Ireland judiciary. Across the many approaches to AI governance emerging in the courts globally in recent years, surprisingly few have focused on the co-development of guidelines with the judges expected to follow them. Many operate at a level of abstraction too remote for busy judges to apply them without a significant time investment (e.g., ‘be aware of bias’ may not be granular enough for most judges). With this in mind, we have been running a series of interviews with judicial officeholders at all levels to understand more concretely what useable guidance on AI usage should look like from their perspective. This will be followed up with a focus group discussion to develop a dynamic set of guidelines catered to judicial work as we understand it here in Northern Ireland. This is not only true for judges. There is no substitute for sitting in a room and working through the problems with the people who face them. It is worth investing in the relevant training. Not only will it likely improve the operation of law, but it will also give lawyers the confidence to adopt these tools where they help and jettison them where they do not. This is a judgement to be made by the profession itself. Our Law & Technology students will shape these discussions in the years to come.

‘ There is no substitute for sitting in a room and working through the problems with the people who face them.’

The Writ Autumn 2026

Beyond Technical Skills: Why AI Literacy Matters

Dr Francine Ryan Senior Law Lecturer Open University Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the way people access information, how we make decisions and deliver services. For legal professionals the challenge is no longer whether AI will influence practice, but whether individuals and organisations have the knowledge and critical skills required to use these technologies responsibly and effectively.

The importance of AI Literacy Without AI literacy, individuals may struggle to navigate increasingly AI-driven environments, assess risks and benefits, or question the reliability of AI-generated outputs. Organisations may likewise underestimate the importance of governance frameworks, clear policies and ongoing oversight. As a result, the UK Government Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (2025) increasingly views AI literacy as a critical component of the 21st century. AI literacy is an evolving and multidisciplinary concept, but there is no fixed or agreed-upon global definition. There are different definitions across various sectors, including education, computer science, and law, reflecting different sociocultural understandings of AI literacy. AI literacy is more than an understanding of how AI systems function. It is the ability to use, evaluate and critically assess AI technologies, understand their limitations, and recognise how data, design choices and underlying assumptions can shape outputs. Importantly, AI literacy also requires engagement with broader questions concerning fairness, bias, transparency, accountability and power.

Risks of a growing digital divide Like other forms of technology, access to AI and the ability to develop AI literacy vary depending on individuals’ socioeconomic status, geographic location, age, education level, gender, and related factors. This uneven access results in what is increasingly recognised as the AI digital divide, which not only affects who can use AI technologies effectively but also who is involved in shaping and developing AI itself, which is an area that arguably lacks diversity. These disparities have significant implications for access to justice. If certain groups are less able to access or critically evaluate AI tools, they may also be disadvantaged in their ability to obtain legal information, understand their rights or engage effectively with increasingly digital legal systems. Recent case law indicates a 42

growing use of AI tools by litigants in person. At a time when access to legal assistance is increasingly challenging, AI is often presented as a potential means of supporting litigants in person with legal research, document drafting and case preparation. However, its use is not without risk. A lack of understanding of AI tools and their limitations can result in inaccurate legal information, fabricated citations, incorrect authorities and the misapplication of legal principles. This may not only disadvantage individuals seeking assistance but also places additional pressure on courts, lawyers and advice organisations.

AI Law and Legal Training Project These challenges provided the backdrop for the AI Law and Legal Training project. For any organisation, the benefits of using AI must be carefully balanced against the risks and that requires organisations to have in place clear policies and safeguards to protect clients, preserve trust, and ensure human oversight. There has been a recognition of the need for AI training, but many organisations have not had access to quality, free, trusted training. The AI Law and Legal Training project, funded by UK Research and Innovation's Responsible AI programme, is a collaboration between The Open University, Citizens Advice and the University of Lincoln. Bringing together expertise from law, technology, education and advice services, the project has resulted in the creation of a suite of openly available courses designed to build confidence, capability and critical understanding of generative AI within legal and advice settings.

The Programme Content The programme comprises eight short courses that provide a structured introduction to AI and its implications for professional practice. The courses are free and hosted by The Open University.

Course 1: Understanding generative AI Course 2: Skills and strategies for using generative AI Course 3: Key considerations for implementing generative AI Course 4: Use cases for generative AI Course 5: Ethical and responsible use of generative AI Course 6: Navigating risk management Course 7: Understanding legal regulation and compliance Course 8: Horizon scanning and AI literacy

The courses are practical and engaging, and include case studies, videos, quizzes and activities. On completion of each course, learners receive a digital badge and a certificate of participation which they can use to evidence their continuing professional development and add to their LinkedIn profile. The courses also have a Creative Commons licence, so they can be used by organisations as part of their training. Early feedback suggests that the courses have addressed a significant gap in accessible and professional learning opportunities. As one participant commented: ‘This is a fantastic course that, as head of legal in a private sector business, I have found invaluable and mandated my team to undertake. I have also recommended it widely to others, even outside the legal profession, as a really helpful entry way into understanding GenAI better and using it more effectively.’

Going Forward As AI continues to reshape professional practice, developing proficiency in AI is crucial. Organisations need strategies that combine practical skills with critical AI literacy, enabling people to validate outputs, recognise limitations and make informed judgements about the appropriate use of AI. For the legal profession, where trust, accountability and professional judgement are paramount, investing in AI literacy is essential. In addition, there is a pressing need for the legal community to come together to ensure that AI enhances, rather than undermines, access to justice and the delivery of legal services.

Dr Francine Ryan is a Senior Lecturer in Law at The Open University and Director of the Open Justice Centre, a qualified lawyer and legal academic. Her work focuses on bridging legal education and practice, with an emphasis on advancing access to justice through innovative teaching and research.

The Writ Autumn 2026

AI and the Trainee Solicitor

Why Professional Judgement Matters More Than Ever Denise Hanna Legal Eductaion, Training and Development Officer Law Society of Northern Ireland The legal profession is continuing to adapt to rapid technological change as artificial intelligence becomes increasingly embedded in legal practice. Recognising both the opportunities and challenges presented by these developments, the Law Society of Northern Ireland recently published its Guidance on the Responsible Use of AI. As part of this broader work, the Society has also considered how best to prepare future solicitors for a profession in which technology will play an increasingly important role. Many trainee solicitors are already engaging with AI through their studies, training and working environments. The challenge is no longer simply understanding the technology itself, but developing the professional judgement needed to use it appropriately and responsibly. The introduction of the Society's AI guidance highlighted an opportunity to embed these principles at the earliest stage of a solicitor's professional development. By introducing trainees to the ethical, regulatory and practical considerations surrounding AI before they qualify, the Society can help foster a culture of responsible innovation and informed decision-making from the outset of their careers. Against this backdrop, the Society is introducing a new Digital Professional Responsibility e-module as part of its trainee solicitor programme. Developed collaboratively by the Professional Development Department and the Law Tech Committee, the module will build on the principles underpinning the Society's AI guidance and will be delivered for the first time to the 2026 intake of trainee solicitors.

Focusing on professional responsibility, ethical decision-making and risk awareness, the module will encourage trainees to think critically about the role of AI in legal practice. Through realistic scenarios, they will explore issues including legal research, drafting, confidentiality, data protection, supervision and court-related work, developing the judgement required to use emerging technologies safely and effectively. A central theme of the module is that professional judgement cannot be delegated. While AI may assist with research, drafting, summarising information and administrative tasks, solicitors remain responsible for ensuring that their work is accurate, reliable and appropriate. Trainees will be encouraged to critically evaluate AI-generated content and understand the limitations and risks associated with its use. The module will also consider wider professional obligations, including confidentiality, data protection and the protection of legally privileged information. It will explore the importance of maintaining proper oversight when using technology and ensuring that any work produced with the assistance of AI complies with the standards expected of the profession. Particular attention will also be given to the use of AI in court-facing work. While technology may support research, drafting and document preparation, solicitors must ensure that any material submitted to the court is accurate, verified and compliant with their professional duties. The solicitor's obligation to the administration of justice remains paramount.

Commenting on the initiative, Angela Brady, Chair of the Law Tech Committee, said: ‘Artificial intelligence is already reshaping the way legal services are delivered, and that presents both opportunities and responsibilities for the profession. While AI can assist with research, drafting and administrative tasks, it cannot replace the professional judgement, critical thinking and ethical decision-making that sit at the heart of legal practice. The Law Tech Committee has been pleased to work alongside the Professional Development Department on the development of this module. We are helping to prepare future practitioners to engage confidently with emerging technologies while maintaining the trust and standards upon which the profession is built.’ Darren Patterson, Head of Professional Development, added: ‘Many trainees already use AI, so the focus of this module is not on the technology itself but on the professional judgement needed to use it appropriately. We want trainees to understand when AI can be a useful tool, when its output needs to be checked and when it should not be relied upon.’ As AI becomes more embedded in legal practice, solicitors will need to balance the opportunities offered by new technologies with the professional duties that underpin public trust in the legal system. Through the introduction of the Digital Professional Responsibility module, the Society is helping to ensure that the next generation of solicitors is equipped to navigate that balance with confidence, competence and sound professional judgement.

The module recognises a simple reality: many trainees are already using AI in their studies, workplaces and everyday lives. The challenge is no longer learning how to access these tools but understanding how to use them appropriately within a professional and regulatory framework.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Tech regulation in 2026

The move towards direct product liability Michael Pratt CEO CiviCode Ltd. In this article, Michael Pratt (CEO, CiviCode Ltd.) highlights a major shift in tech regulation: moving from passive content moderation to direct product liability for harmful algorithmic design. Grounded in United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) General Comment 25, Michael explores how predatory tech architecture impacts Northern Ireland and why community-led regulatory design is essential to protecting young people. Michael will speak at the IPLS seminar on children’s digital rights, co-organised by the Children’s Law Centre and the IPLS, in early 2027.

The Shift to Product Liability There is a profound shift occurring in global legal responses to corporate negligence. While the climate crisis may have increased calls for greater cooperation globally between states, communities and companies, the long-term effects of social media platforms on our children has driven decisive global action in questioning the design principles behind the systems we all use every day. For decades, the standard approach to regulating social media platforms involved attempting to moderate the vast ocean of user-generated content, allowing platforms to shield themselves using safe harbour provisions like Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act.

In March 2026, the landmark verdict in K.G.M. vs Meta et al bypassed this defence entirely by focusing on product liability. The jury found Meta and YouTube liable for the negligent design of their platforms specifically, the deliberate engineering of addictive features like infinite scroll and algorithmic amplification that exploits the psychological vulnerabilities of minors for profit. In August 2026, a New Mexico judge ordered Meta to pay $567 million after ruling the company’s platforms constituted a ‘public nuisance’ that severely harmed the mental health of young people. This recent order comes on top of a $375 million civil penalty awarded by a jury which found Meta concealed the risks of child sexual exploitation and mental health harms, bringing Meta’s total liability in New Mexico alone to $942 million. As over forty states push forward with similar lawsuits, the ruling is widely considered a blueprint for treating algorithmic platform design as a public nuisance and Meta as a provider of defective products. Courts are moving beyond simple content moderation and striking at the core business models of these technology giants. This verdict signals to regulators that accountability lies not just in policing content, but in scrutinising the underlying architecture of digital products. It lays bare the reality that global corporations have routinely prioritised engagement metrics, data collection and economic growth over child safety.

UNCRC General Comment 25 provides a framework for addressing these failures at a state level. The NI case of R v McCartney1 reinforces the UN mandate that parties must cooperate bilaterally and multilaterally, highlighting an essential need for strong international and regional cooperation in matters of children and digital safety. Common definitions of crimes, mutual legal assistance and the joint collection and sharing of evidence are a necessity. As Northern Ireland continues to modernise its public services, extra caution must be exercised within the youth justice sector. The UN’s mandate recognises that the digitisation of court proceedings, resulting in a lack of in-person contact, may have a negative impact on rehabilitative and restorative justice measures. States must be responsible for continuing to provide real, in-person contact to facilitate a child’s ability to meaningfully engage with the justice system. For those in vulnerable or deprived communities (which is unfortunately the reality for many children living in NI) the digital environment can provide access to vital information and support. Access to online resources should be a way to combat the exploitation of minors. Instead, all too often, it exacerbates it. Ensuring safe, secure and beneficial digital access for children should not be viewed as a nuisance to corporations, but a world-wide necessity.

‘ Global corporations have routinely prioritised engagement metrics, data collection and economic growth over child safety.’

R v McCartney [2024] NICC 30.

The Writ Autumn 2026

The Limits of Current State Regulation

Stakeholder-led Paradigm Shifting

To be stark about the current economic realities, nation states are struggling to regulate private entities that wield more financial power and global influence than many sovereign governments.

This mandate for broad engagement opens the door to a new regulatory paradigm already common in the technology industry: Stakeholder-led Design.

The traditional ‘command and control’ model of legislation is inherently reactive. By the time legislation like the UK’s Online Safety Act is drafted, debated and implemented, the technological landscape and corporate structures of these companies have already evolved at such a pace as to make them insufficient. When governments attempt to regulate these multinational behemoths, they frequently face immense lobbying power, threats of capital flight, and the weaponisation of international trade. The blunt reality is that under current economic structures, state regulators are perpetually out resourced and outmanoeuvred by the very corporations they seek to constrain. Despite these systemic barriers, the intersection of General Comment 25 and emerging legal precedents presents a unique opportunity to overhaul how governments function.

Instead of governments attempting to unilaterally impose rules either on tech giants or children, there is an opportunity to embrace participatory governance. If courts are demanding safer product design, governments should pioneer safer regulatory design by co-creating frameworks directly with the communities most affected. By bringing young people, educators and community organisations into the legislative and regulatory process, this power dynamic can be shifted. This is an unparalleled opportunity for governments to fundamentally overhaul constituent engagement. By moving away from top-down enforcement, towards community-empowered, resilient frameworks, the state can transform from a reactive enforcer into an active facilitator and protector of human rights in the digital environment. The acceptance of the many positive aspects of having public forums that are safe, age-appropriate and objectively fair to those participating could be a catalyst for deeper, more meaningful democratic participation.

After all, it is not just in the area of human rights in the digital age that more participation and stakeholder-led design would be welcomed, but across health and social care systems, public education and global taxation of corporations. By increasing accountability and transparency, we can gain a better collective understanding of why it is essential to create online systems that have more than the singular goal of generating advertising revenue. Stakeholders from every sector need to be involved in the design process of systems that affect our health, education and privacy. This is the only way to enact sustainable change addressing large scale, complex issues in a shared society.

CiviCode is a Belfast-based digital consultancy and technical partner dedicated to supporting voluntary, community, social enterprise and public sector organisations across Northern Ireland with ethical and socially responsible digital transformation. CiviCode helps mission-driven organisations modernise operations, optimise cloud infrastructure and develop sustainable digital strategies that enhance efficiency and longterm impact. Through bespoke software development, secure AI implementation, data analytics, technical skills development and practical AI and data literacy training, the company enables organisations to make better use of technology while strengthening their ability to measure, demonstrate and maximise social value.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Prosecution Building the PPS of Tomorrow

Owen Crilly Head of ICT PPS

Artificial intelligence (AI) is often portrayed as a future technology, yet elements of it are currently already reshaping how organisations manage information, take decisions and deliver services. Within the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland (PPS), AI is not viewed as a replacement for professional judgement and expertise. Nor is it a replacement for staff. Rather, it is an opportunity to equip prosecutors and support teams with better tools to reduce administrative pressures and create more time for the skilled work that only people can perform.

Why AI Matters for Prosecution Services

From Exploration to Practical Delivery

What Could AI-Enabled Prosecution Look Like?

The volume and complexity of information handled by prosecution services internationally continues to grow. Case files increasingly contain large volumes of digital material, including complex mobile phone data, audio, video, electronic correspondence and disclosure material. At the same time, public expectations continue to increase, requiring justice organisations to deliver services that are more efficient, accessible and responsive.

For the PPS, AI is not purely theoretical. A number of practical initiatives are already helping the organisation understand how these technologies can be used safely and effectively.

The greatest benefits are likely to emerge when AI capabilities become embedded within day-to-day prosecution workflows and future case management platforms.

The PPS 2030 Vision Statement and wider digital transformation ambitions recognise that technology must play an increasingly important role in supporting justice outcomes. Peter Luney, PPS Senior Assistant Director of Resources and Change, has committed to the PPS becoming ‘a ‘digital first’ organisation aligned with the wider transformation of Public Services.’ AI represents the next logical step. Properly governed and responsibly deployed, AI can help unlock value from information, automate routine processes and support faster access to knowledge, while ensuring prosecutorial decisions remain firmly under human control. AI can rapidly process and analyse large volumes of statements, exhibits, and evidential material to identify key information, connections, and summaries for prosecutor review.

One example is the use of audio-to-text transcription technology for sentencing hearing recordings provided by the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS). Converting audio recordings into searchable textual transcripts enables information to be located more quickly and reduces the manual effort associated with transcribing and reviewing lengthy recordings. The organisation is also piloting Microsoft Copilot and other AI-enabled productivity tools. Early work involving colleagues from legal, business and ICT functions has examined how AI can support activities such as summarising documents, identifying actions, creating first drafts of reports and helping staff navigate large volumes of information. In parallel, the PPS Resource Management Team is exploring automated meeting transcription and summarisation capabilities. Early pilots have demonstrated how meetings can be transcribed automatically, key decisions highlighted and action points captured without the need for time consuming manual note-taking. These initiatives are important not simply because of the immediate productivity gains they may offer but because they are helping the PPS build organisational knowledge about the opportunities, risks and governance requirements associated with AI.

The PPS has already identified a number of potential use cases that could transform how information is managed and utilised.

Potential Future AI Use Cases within the PPS •D ocument Review and Analysis - Secure AI summarisation and analysis tools operating within controlled environments. •A ssisted Redaction - AI tools that analyse case documents and suggest potential redactions. •C lient/Victim Communication - AI-assisted drafting tools for routine communications. •C ase Triage (Quality and Completeness) - AI tools that analyse case files and flag risks based on defined criteria. • Case Allocation - AI-assisted workload and resource management systems. • AI Assisted Meetings Automated meeting notes and action tracking. •A udio to Text Transcription – Automated transcription of audio recordings.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Consider a complex prosecution involving thousands of pages of evidence and multiple digital media sources. In the future, AI tools may be able to generate concise summaries, identify key themes, highlight relevant passages and help prosecutors navigate material more efficiently. Rather than replacing legal analysis, such tools could allow prosecutors to focus their expertise on evaluating evidence and making decisions. Similarly, AI may assist with the preparation of routine correspondence, management reports and briefing papers. Staff could spend less time drafting standard material and more time tailoring outputs to the needs of victims, witnesses, counsel and criminal justice partners. Knowledge management presents another significant opportunity. Like many organisations, the PPS holds substantial volumes of information across systems, documents and repositories. AI-enabled search capabilities could allow staff to locate policy guidance, operational procedures, precedents and organisational knowledge in seconds rather than hours. Integrating this search capability across online criminal law practitioner sites would provide a powerful tool that would support a prosecutor in their legal decision-making work. Over time, AI may also support improved workload analysis and operational planning. By identifying trends within casework and management information, leaders may be able to make more informed decisions about resource allocation, service improvement and future demand.

Building AI into the Next Generation of PPS Systems The PPS is currently shaping its future technology landscape through procurement and strategic planning activity. One important consideration is ensuring that future contracts are sufficiently flexible to accommodate emerging technologies. AI is evolving rapidly. Systems procured today may remain in service for many years, during which AI capabilities are likely to become increasingly sophisticated. As a result, the PPS intends to ensure that future contracts and technology platforms are capable of supporting AI-enabled functionality when business requirements, governance arrangements and public confidence considerations align. This approach is not about procuring technology for technology’s sake. It is about ensuring that future platforms, data architectures and supplier arrangements can support innovation while maintaining security, resilience and compliance requirements. It is clear that the organisations that gain most value from AI will be those that embed the capability into core business processes rather than treat it as a standalone technology project.

Governance Must Develop Alongside Innovation For justice organisations, innovation cannot be separated from responsibility. The legal sector has understandably approached AI with caution. Questions around accuracy, transparency, confidentiality, bias, accountability and evidential integrity must all be addressed before AI can be deployed at scale. Recognising this, the PPS is planning to develop a formal approach to AI adoption.

Strategic work is underway to establish a clear AI vision, governance framework and oversight arrangements. This will ensure that policy, risk management, assurance and accountability mechanisms develop alongside technological capability. Human oversight will remain fundamental. AI can assist with locating information, summarising content and identifying patterns, but accountability for prosecutorial decisions must remain with appropriately qualified people. The PPS is also mindful of wider guidance emerging from government, the legal profession’s governing bodies and other criminal justice agencies. As AI adoption accelerates across society, maintaining public trust will be just as important as achieving operational efficiency.

A Vision for the Future The future impact of AI on prosecution services is unlikely to come from a single breakthrough application. Rather, it will come from the cumulative effect of many improvements that remove administrative friction, improve access to knowledge and allow professionals to focus on higher-value work. The PPS has already started that journey through transcription technologies, AIpowered natural language digital assistant pilots and meeting intelligence tools. The next phase will involve turning those initial experiments into an enterprise approach supported by strategy, governance and future-ready technology contracts. Ultimately, the objective is simple. AI should help the PPS deliver a prosecution service that is more efficient and better equipped to meet the needs of a modern justice system while remaining committed to the principles of fairness, independence and the Rule of Law. That journey is already underway.

‘ The organisations that gain most value from AI will be those that embed the capability into core business processes rather than treat it as a standalone technology project.’

The Writ Autumn 2026

Being Good With AI Professional Ethics in an Age of Machine-Augmented Practice

Tadhg Hickey Head of AI & Digital Ethics Policy AICC AI capability is moving faster than any technology the profession has previously absorbed. The duties that define professional conduct are not changing, but how solicitors discharge those duties shift with every tool they integrate. Tadhg Hickey, Head of AI and Digital Ethics Policy at the Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre (AICC) speaks about striking the balance, and a responsible approach based on trust and accountability. Consider that someone uses an AI-assistant to summarise 40 pages of correspondence in a legal matter. The summary is fluent, well-ordered and useful. However, it also omits the one letter that mattered. Nobody noticed, because nothing looks wrong. It reads as competent work. Time moves on, but 18 months later somebody asks a question about the case, and nobody can say what produced the summary or who checked it. Nothing there is a technology failure. The tool did what it was built to do. What failed was the absence of a named person who took ownership. And the real cost is not the file. This is the sort of episode that persuades a firm to pull back from AI altogether to reduce risk while consequently stunting opportunity. Research from the Legal Services Board identified that around a third of adults facing legal problems receive no professional help. AI tools that compress the routine parts of a matter release capacity for the parts that need qualified expertise. AI technologies have become a conduit for more efficient legal service delivery. That is why the pattern above matters. AI is rarely unsuccessful because the technology disappoints. It stalls because something goes wrong that nobody planned for, confidence collapses, and professionals retreat.

‘ Responsible AI is what prevents stalling. It’s not a brake but the thing that lets adoption survive potential bad outcomes.’ So, what happens when professional ethics meets the ethics of AI? Two sets of demands now apply to the same piece of work. The ethics of AI asks whether a system can be trusted; professional practice asks whether a practitioner can be trusted. Both need to be satisfied at once, and the pace of the first does not excuse slippage of the second.

The overlap is narrower than most firms assume, and it is where the balance is held. Neither a standalone policy, nor a restatement of conduct rules will hold it alone. So, what does? A responsible approach is built on two things the profession already understands: trust and accountability.

The Ethics of the Technology Governance is trying to keep pace with the technology. The OECD principles, UNESCO’s recommendation on AI ethics, the NIST Risk Management Framework, the EU AI Act, and ISO standards all converge on the same commitments: fairness, transparency, privacy, safety, reliability, and accountability with meaningful human oversight. None of it was drafted specifically with law firms in mind. Instead, all of it answers one question: can this technology be trusted? The question has a wide scope. Using AI has been condensed into frontier generative AI models, but AI is much larger: document classification, data extraction, optical character recognition, conflict screening, and workflow automation have already been significantly adopted in legal service delivery. These all do one job in a controlled way and produce outputs which are reliable (but still need review). For much legal work,

they are easier to govern and far less likely to invent false narratives. ‘ Choosing the right AI technology is part of being responsible, alongside supporting professionals to be good with AI technology.’

Responsible AI as a Professional Duty Here is the part that is sometimes lost. Those commitments are written as properties of a system, as though a model can be fair or explainable. However, a system does not owe anyone anything. They become enforceable only when attached to a person or organisation who can be held accountable. If you transfer each commitment from AI technology to the legal profession, then it lands somewhere familiar. • Fairness becomes the duty not to discriminate. • Transparency becomes the obligation to explain the basis of advice (and sources of information). • Privacy becomes the duty of confidence. • Safety becomes the duty of competence. • Accountability becomes named responsibility for outcomes. These are not new principles borrowed from technology, they are the profession’s own duties, reimagined in the world of AI. The legal profession has a considerable head start towards being good with AI. While other sectors are building accountability from scratch, legal workplaces are used to operating with guardrails, named responsibility, supervision of delegated work, duty to verify, or offering routes to redress when something goes wrong. The profession is not behind responsible AI. It is unusually well-equipped for it. However, the equipment is only useful if it is directed at the right problems, and not every AI application warrants the same level of scrutiny.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Not All AI Carries the Same Risk

Responsible AI is an Enabler

The instinct to prohibit is understandable and self-defeating. A ban does not stop use; it moves onto personal devices where accountability is defeated by hidden use. The objective is to match control to the risk. The ethical test is harm-based: who could be affected, how seriously, and can they challenge the results? A tool drafting training notes and a tool screening vulnerable clients are not the same proposition. The EU AI Act tiers obligations by risk to support proportionate responsible responses. (It is worth highlighting that AI used in the administration of justice is high-risk.)

By integrating tiered risks, professionals can move forwards with a basis for deciding the suitability of AI. This is where responsible AI starts paying for itself, and it does so through two returns the professional already values.

Clients arrive with the same appetite for riskbased use. Research from the Legal Services Board found consumers naming five nonnegotiables: guaranteed minimum accuracy, no consequential action without informed consent, human oversight, accountability for harm, and protection of their personal information. Those are the duties of a legal professional described by someone who has never read a conduct rule.

Northern Ireland is also shaping its own responsible AI landscape through the Society’s Guidance on the Responsible Use of AI, a new Regional AI Advisory Panel, and its Office of AI and Digital. The region draws on three influences: the UK’s pro-innovation regulatory model, the EU AI Act felt through cross-border practice, and regional initiatives like the AICC’s Responsible AI Hub. These dimensions point to the same practical conclusion: have your governance meet AI at the right level.

• T rust is the first dividend: a professional that can show it has considered the risks and kept human oversight in place, earns the confidence that lets adoption survive setbacks. •A ccountability is the second: The scenario at the start of this article did not fail because someone used AI. It failed because nobody owned the output. A named person, a record of the tool used, an understanding of its limitations, the tool is different; but the duty is the same.

Taking the Responsible Path Forward None of this requires perfection. It requires a reasonable approach, one that a legal professional, a regulator, or a court would recognise as proportionate and considered. The question is not whether every risk has been eliminated, but whether the idea was tested before the time and resources were committed to it. This is exactly the purpose of the Reasonable Test, a practical tool on the AICC’s Responsible AI Hub. It puts an AI idea before a virtual panel of diverse perspectives (ethical, practical, societal) and returns a clear assessment in under two minutes. It is not a substitute for professional AI advice, but it is a structured way to surface problems at the point where they are easiest to address: the beginning. For a legal professional, the Reasonable Test offers something familiar: the discipline of identifying issues before they become liabilities. Apply it before adopting a new AI tool, before changing how client data is processed, or before AI in a higherrisk area of practice. If the idea survives that early scrutiny, it can move forward with confidence.

If it does not, the firm has avoided a problem rather than inherited one. The Society’s Guidance, the AICC’s Responsible AI Hub, and tools like the Reasonable Test are designed to make this achievable rather than aspirational. Responsible AI is not a barrier to adoption. It is a foundation that allows AI adoption to last.

Scan Here to find out more The Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre (AICC) is a £16.3 million initiative led by Ulster University in partnership with Queen’s University Belfast, dedicated to advancing the awareness, adoption and responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies across Northern Ireland. Supported by Invest Northern Ireland and the Department for the Economy, the five-year programme bridges the gap between academic research and practical business application, helping organisations, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, harness the potential of AI to improve competitiveness, productivity and innovation. Through collaborative research and development, specialist technical support, and workforce training in areas such as data science and machine learning, the AICC enables businesses to develop datadriven solutions and build future-ready capabilities.

Head of AI & Digital Ethics Policy at AICC, Tadhg is positioned at the forefront of creating guidelines and policies that promote responsible AI usage, ensuring transparency, fairness, privacy, and accountability in AI. It's Tadhg's role to help build business and public trust in AI technologies and their use.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Client care in the age of AI Joanne Cracknell Senior Director Willis Towers Watson (WTW) Effective client care in the solicitor profession relies on delivering consistently high-quality legal services while maintaining trust and confidence. These principles are becoming increasingly important as artificial intelligence (AI) is adopted by both legal professionals and their clients. AI tools enable clients to analyse invoices, draft complaints, scrutinise legal advice and raise concerns more quickly and confidently, creating higher expectations around service quality, transparency and responsiveness. These developments, together with recent changes to the way client service complaints are addressed through the introduction of the Standards Complaints Committee, highlight the growing importance of effective communication, proactive client engagement and robust complaint-handling procedures within law firms in Northern Ireland.

Whilst AI has the potential to improve access to justice and empower clients, its growing use is also contributing to an increase in complaints. Many of these complaints are generic, poorly informed or based on misunderstandings, creating additional work and, in some cases, significant stress for those handling them. Traditionally, complaints were often limited to a short letter or email. Today, readily available AI tools allow clients to generate lengthy complaints with minimal effort. These submissions can be repetitive, poorly drafted and founded on inaccurate assumptions or misunderstandings of legal issues. As a result, complaints are becoming longer, more complex and increasingly timeconsuming to investigate and resolve. There have also been reports in the legal press of solicitors being subjected to AI-generated abusive correspondence from clients. In this environment, effective communication has never been more important. Most complaints arise not from the quality of legal advice itself, but from a failure to meet client expectations. Clear, timely and transparent communication is therefore a critical element of effective client care, helping to manage expectations, reduce misunderstandings and minimise the risk of complaints while strengthening client relationships.

I. The client care letter Solicitors should actively listen to clients and understand their needs, concerns and expectations from the outset. A well drafted client care letter is the startingpoint, clearly setting out the scope of the retainer, what work will and will not be undertaken, likely timescales, costs and potential outcomes is fundamental to managing clients’ expectations. Establishing realistic expectations early helps clients understand both the legal process and the limits of their solicitor’s role. This reduces misunderstandings, promotes transparency and trust and ensures clients feel informed and involved throughout their matter.

II. The importance of regular updates Clients often become frustrated not because of problems with their matter, but because they do not know what is happening. Delays, court timetables, procedural requirements, regulatory processes and third-party dependencies can all affect progress. If these developments are not communicated clearly and promptly, clients may assume their case is being neglected. Regular updates and clear explanations of key stages help clients understand the reasons for delays and the steps being taken on their behalf. Keeping clients informed throughout a matter reduces misunderstandings, manages expectations, strengthens trust and significantly lowers the likelihood of complaints arising from poor communication.

The Writ Autumn 2026

III. Transparency around costs

V. Educating clients

Conclusion

Transparency around costs is essential, particularly as AI-generated complaints often focus on billing issues and unclear charges. Clients should be informed promptly if costs are likely to exceed initial estimates. Regular discussions about fees help manage expectations, avoid unpleasant surprises and demonstrate openness. Clear billing practices enhance the client experience and place firms in a stronger position should any costs challenge arise.

Client education is a valuable tool in reducing complaints. Many AI tools generate complaints based on incomplete or inaccurate information entered by users. Solicitors who take time to explain legal concepts, procedural requirements and likely outcomes can reduce misunderstandings that may later become the basis of a complaint. Providing accessible guides and explanatory materials can help clients develop a more realistic understanding of their matter.

IV. T he value of accurate attendance and file notes

VI. Responsive complaints handling

Maintaining accurate and comprehensive attendance and files notes is also a crucial part of the client transaction lifecycle. AI-generated complaints are often supported by timelines created from emails, correspondence and documents.

AI is reshaping how clients interact with their solicitors and the provision of legal services, making it easier than ever to scrutinise advice, analyse invoices and generate complaints. At the same time, AI presents significant opportunities for law firms to improve client care. By analysing complaint trends, monitoring client satisfaction and identifying process improvements, AI-powered tools can help firms detect issues early through automated feedback surveys and service monitoring, enabling concerns to be addressed before they escalate into formal complaints.

Finally, solicitors should ensure that their complaints handling procedures are easy to access and responsive. Clients who feel ignored are more likely to make formal complaints or escalate matters to external regulators. Prompt acknowledgement, thorough investigation and an empathetic response can often resolve issues quickly and preserve client relationships.

Solicitors should maintain clear records of advice given, decisions made, instructions received and communications with clients. Detailed records enable firms to respond quickly and effectively if concerns are raised and provide strong evidence that appropriate advice and service have been delivered.

While AI creates new challenges, the solution remains rooted in the fundamentals of effective client care. Clear communication, managing clients’ expectations, transparency around costs, accurate record-keeping and responsive complaints handling are essential components. Firms that prioritise trust, keep clients informed and actively engage with them throughout their matter will be better placed to reduce complaints, strengthen client relationships and thrive in an increasingly AI-driven legal environment.

Willis Towers Watson (WTW) is a leading global advisory, broking and solutions company that provides data-driven, insight-led services across the areas of risk, capital and people. WTW works with organisations of all sizes to navigate complex challenges, strengthen resilience and enhance performance through innovative solutions and strategic advice. The company’s expertise spans risk and insurance broking, employee benefits and rewards consulting and actuarial services, investment advisory, and talent and workforce solutions. Combining global perspective with local insight, WTW helps clients manage risk, optimise workforce strategies, unlock capital and drive sustainable growth. Guided by a strong commitment to client focus, teamwork, integrity, respect and excellence, WTW partners closely with organisations to transform emerging challenges into opportunities and support long-term success.

The Writ Autumn 2026

AI in law firms

Understanding the risks and managing the exposure

Conrad Smyth Account Director Gallagher

Artificial intelligence creates opportunities, from improved efficiency to faster document handling and knowledge retrieval. But as AI adoption grows, so does the risk landscape. For law firms, the challenge is balancing the positive benefits while ensuring proper governance and managing the professional, cyber, regulatory, and insurance exposures that may follow. The speed of adoption could give law firms a competitive advantage or, at the very least, help them keep pace with their peers, as this tool promises to support productivity, streamline workflows, and enable lawyers to process large volumes of information more efficiently. However, used without proper oversight, it can create a range of operational, regulatory and liability concerns. The speed at which a law firm integrates and adopts the AI into its everyday work should be matched stride for stride by its governance of it.

Internal exposures: risk from within the firm CONFIDENTIAL DATA Holding legally privileged material, commercially sensitive information and significant volumes of personal data is an accepted part of the day-to-day risk for law firms. Regulations governing data holding and processing have become stricter over the years, and firms have responded by implementing robust governance to prevent breaches. New open and freeto-use AI tools threaten this. When information is entered into public or poorly governed AI tools, firms may lose visibility into how it is processed, stored, or reused. That creates potential exposure not only from a regulatory perspective but also from a client-trust and Professional Indemnity (PI) standpoint. PI policies typically respond to data breaches resulting from professional negligence or breach of duty that cause a client's financial loss. 52

DATA RELIABILITY Generative AI can produce smooth and persuasive output, but this doesn’t guarantee it is accurate. Data sources can be biased, incomplete or outdated. When individuals rely on AI-generated summaries, drafting or research without appropriate review, the outcome can be flawed leading to poor advice and false submissions. A poor outcome for the client increases the potential for complaints, notifications and negligence allegations. A law firm must ensure that all work it produces externally using AI undergoes rigorous checks to verify citations and evidence. GOVERNANCE A firm’s exposure lies not just in formal deployment but in informal use. Many fee-earners and support staff will likely use online AI tools outside of the proprietary practice AI programme and often without the approval or oversight of senior or supervising solicitors. This use of ‘shadow AI’ is common when drafting documentation, note summarisation or undertaking research. This use can fall outside the scope of procurement, compliance, and IT controls, making it harder to identify and manage. SUPPLY CHAIN Third-party vendor risk must be considered carefully. Where AI capability is delivered through external providers such as case or practice management systems, the firm must ensure that there is an understanding how data is handled, who owns the data, what security standards apply, whether prompts or inputs may be retained, and, most importantly of all, where does the contractual liability sit. This is essential for risk mapping. If the AI tool contributes to negligent advice or a data breach, the exposure is not limited to the AI supplier but extends to the firm's surrounding contractual and operational framework making the firm liable for any resulting claims.

External exposures: AI-enabled cyber threats The benefits of AI are not limited to legitimate businesses. The growing sophistication of AI means threat actors can now use the technology to scale phishing campaigns, mimic writing style, generate convincing fraudulent communications and support more effective social engineering attempts. Law firms are attractive targets, and as a result, so are their vendors. Firms hold sensitive client information and operate under time pressure. Putting sensitive information into AI tools, even approved ones, creates opportunities for attackers. AI makes it easier for attackers to produce more credible phishing emails, impersonation attempts, and fraudulent requests. This creates a dual exposure: Firstly, there are the direct costs of a cyber event; business interruption, forensic investigation, breach response, regulatory scrutiny and breaches and reputational damage. Secondly, there may be client exposure, with confidential information compromised, deadlines missed, or transactions disrupted all of which would result in breaches of civil liability and/or negligence.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Managing the exposure Maintaining an inventory of AI tools in use and classifying them by risk is key to beginning to mitigate the firm’s exposure to the negative impacts of AI. Not every use case carries the same exposure. Administrative or internal support tools may be relatively low risk. Tools used in legal research, drafting, client advice, disclosure, HR or decision-making are high risk and require stronger controls and procedures for use. A clear AI policy is required to identify approved tools, prohibit or minimise uses, escalation routes, review requirements, and data-handling rules. It should set out what information must never be posted onto public platforms and the level of human review required before AI-assisted output is used externally, especially in advising clients. To improve awareness and set a minimum level of skill, a training programme should be implemented. Staff need practical guidance on what the tool is, what it can access, its reliability, and when its output must be checked or rejected. Comprehensive training supports more defensible behaviour across the firm and reduces the likelihood of misuse through misunderstanding or convenience. Controls should extend to procurement and incident response. Supplier contracts should address confidentiality, security, data use, audit rights, business continuity, intellectual property, indemnities and liability caps. Incident response plans should also reflect AI-specific scenarios, such as data leakage through prompts, compromised knowledge repositories or AI-assisted fraud attempts. From an insurance perspective, firms should also review how AI-related exposures interact with their existing programme. Depending on the firm’s use of AI, this may engage professional indemnity, cyber, directors’ and officers’ liability, employment practices liability or technology-related covers. A firm needs to be aware of where a claim might arise and which policy or policies will respond to it to avoid any gaps in coverage.

Underwriters are beginning to ask questions about AI exposure and expect firms to be proactively managing the risk. Examples of such questions are as follows; • How has the AI tool been selected and to what extent have the terms and conditions been reviewed for exposures? • What is the purpose of the AI being used and has the practice set out a clear set of circumstances where they consider AI to be used and where it is not? • What AI training has the practice provided to its staff on the grounding and framing of AI and what procedures are in place to assess the outputs for accuracy and acceptability?

A managed approach AI offers a real opportunity, but the firms most likely to benefit will be those that approach it in the same way they approach any other evolving exposure: with clear accountability, robust oversight, and proportionate controls aligned with their usage. Speed of adoption will give firms a competitive advantage. Ensuring its risk is properly governed will help it last.

Gallagher's Support for Northern Ireland Law Firms Gallagher has partnered with the Law Society of Northern Ireland to provide cyber insurance and cyber risk management services to legal practices across Northern Ireland. Members of the Law Society of Northern Ireland who avail of this offer will be provided with risk management services to help them assess the security of their IT systems and reporting tools which will provide live cyber threat updates. In addition, law firms will be able to access a range of training materials on cybersecurity to help create employee awareness of cyber risks in their business. With 79% of law firms saying that the biggest cyber threat is phishing, staff training helps businesses avoid common employee errors that can often lead to cyber incidents.

The partnership is led by Gallagher’s Northern Ireland team. The cyber risk management services will be provided in collaboration with Coalition, a specialist cyber insurer with extensive experience in supporting law firms and other professional services businesses. Coalition’s position on AI coverage is clear, removing the guesswork around AI coverage by explicitly defining how cyber policies respond to AI driven threats. Coalition’s policies are written in clear policy language, with defined outcomebased coverage and no AI exclusions or unexpected limitations. For further information on how Gallagher can provide solutions for your Cyber Risk Management and Insurance requirements, please contact Conrad Smyth at Gallagher Belfast, conrad_smyth@ajg.com.

Gallagher and Coalition combine insurance expertise and cyber risk innovation to help organisations strengthen their resilience against evolving digital threats. Gallagher is one of the world’s largest insurance brokerage, risk management and consulting firms, operates in more than 130 countries, providing clients with tailored insurance solutions, risk management strategies and human capital consulting services. Coalition is a leading provider of Active Insurance, combining comprehensive cyber insurance coverage with advanced cybersecurity technology, real-time threat monitoring and incident response services to help prevent cyber incidents before they occur. Together, Gallagher and Coalition deliver a proactive approach to cyber risk management, enabling organisations to identify vulnerabilities, mitigate threats and respond effectively to an increasingly complex cyber environment.

The sole purpose of this article is to provide guidance on the issues covered. This article is not intended to give legal advice, and, accordingly, it should not be relied upon. It should not be regarded as a comprehensive statement of the law and/ or market practice in this area. We make no claims as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained herein or in the links which were live at the date of publication. You should not act upon (or should refrain from acting upon) information in this publication without first seeking specific legal and/or specialist advice. Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Limited accepts no liability for any inaccuracy, omission or mistake in this publication, nor will we be responsible for any loss which may be suffered as a result of any person relying on the information contained herein. 53

The Writ Autumn 2026

Choosing Legal Technology Ten Questions to Ask Before You Buy There has probably never been more technology available to law firms - or more ways to make an expensive mistake. David Baskerville considers ten questions firms should ask before committing to their next technology investment.

David Baskerville, Consultant Baskerville Drummond Practice and case management systems, document management, client onboarding, AML, workflow, document automation and an ever-growing range of artificial intelligence products all promise to make legal practices more efficient. The difficult question is not whether technology can help, but which technology genuinely deserves a place in the firm. For firms in Northern Ireland, the decision is not simply about buying modern software. It is about making choices that support a sustainable, compliant and competitive practice in a market where client expectations, regulatory obligations and supplier claims are all moving quickly.

For many practices, this is not an everyday purchasing decision. A core system may remain in place for ten years or more. Choose well and it can improve efficiency, client service and the working lives of staff. Choose badly and the firm can inherit years of workarounds, duplicate systems, frustrated users and unexpected costs. Yet many technology projects go wrong before a supplier has even been shortlisted. The firm starts by asking which system it should buy, rather than what problem it is trying to solve and what outcome it needs to achieve. The following ten questions are not intended to replace a formal procurement process. They are a practical discipline for ensuring that any procurement starts in the right place: with the firm’s objectives, risks and operating model.

‘ We need AI’ is not a business requirement. Start with the problem the firm is trying to solve and the outcome it wants to achieve.’

The Writ Autumn 2026

1. What problem are we actually trying to solve? ‘We need a new practice management system’ is not, on its own, a business requirement. Nor is ‘we need AI’. Start instead with the problem the firm is trying to address. Perhaps fee-earners are spending too much time on administration. Management information is difficult to produce. Client onboarding takes too long. Information is being re-keyed between systems. Documents are difficult to find. The existing platform is approaching end of life. Those are problems that can be investigated and measured. This distinction is particularly important with AI. There is understandable pressure on firms to explore artificial intelligence, but adopting AI should not itself be the objective. ‘We need AI’ is a technology aspiration. ‘We want to reduce the time spent preparing a first draft of a particular document while maintaining appropriate supervision, confidentiality and quality controls’ is much closer to a business requirement. Technology selection should start with the outcome, not the product.

2. Do we already own part of the answer?

That does not mean firms should persevere indefinitely with unsuitable software. There are perfectly good reasons to replace systems. But understanding the existing technology estate first provides a much stronger basis for deciding what genuinely needs to change. It can also reveal duplication. Over time, applications are often introduced to solve individual problems, and the firm gradually ends up with several products providing overlapping functionality. Adding another system may simply add another layer of complexity.

3. How do we work today and how do we want to work tomorrow? Replacing technology creates an opportunity to examine working practices. One of the traps in system selection is approaching the project on the basis that ‘the new system must work exactly like the old one’ or that established business processes cannot be changed. That may feel safer, but it risks reproducing outdated processes in newer technology. Ask how work actually moves through the firm: • Where are the delays? • Where is information entered more than once?

Before replacing an existing system, establish what it can actually do.

• Which activities depend upon spreadsheets, email or individual knowledge?

It is surprisingly common to find firms paying for functionality they are not using, or buying additional applications to perform tasks that an existing platform could already handle.

• Where do fee-earners create their own workarounds because the formal process does not work?

Sometimes the problem is not the technology itself. It may be configuration, training, poor processes or a lack of ownership.

4. Have we got the right people involved? Technology decisions should not belong solely to IT, but neither should they be made solely by a small group of partners. In most firms, a system touches risk, finance, client service, fee-earner productivity and support team workload, so the selection process needs enough voices to understand those impacts without becoming an unwieldy committee. The strongest selection teams combine several perspectives: •S enior leadership needs to articulate the firm's strategic objectives and make decisions when priorities conflict. • Operational users understand how work is actually performed. • Finance may need to assess commercial implications. • Risk and compliance will need to consider what impact any changes will have on their areas of speciality. • IT needs to assess architecture, security, integrations and technical feasibility. • Crucially, the people who will actually use the technology need a meaningful voice in the process. That does not mean creating an enormous committee. Large decision-making groups can make selection harder rather than easier. A relatively small core team, supported by representative users where required, is often more effective. The important point is that the decision should reflect the needs of the firm as a whole rather than the preferences of one department or individual.

Then consider what the process ought to look like. The objective is not simply to digitise an existing process. It is to determine whether the process itself can be improved.

The Writ Autumn 2026

5. What are our genuine requirements?

6. Are we comparing systems or sales demonstrations?

7. How will it fit with everything else?

A requirements list can easily become a catalogue of everything anyone might conceivably want. That makes procurement harder, not better, because suppliers are forced to respond to volume rather than priority.

A good software demonstration is designed to make the product look good. There is nothing wrong with that: suppliers naturally want to show their software at its best. But firms need to ensure they are comparing like with like.

A useful way of avoiding this is to apply the MoSCoW framework, which separates requirements into Must have, Should have, Could have and Won’t have (at least for now). ‘Must haves’ are the requirements without which a solution would not be viable; ‘Should haves’ are important but not essential; ‘Could haves’ would add value if time and budget permit; and ‘Won’t haves’ are deliberately placed outside the scope of the current project. This forces the firm to distinguish genuine business requirements from preferences and helps prevent the selection process becoming a search for a system that promises to do everything.

Rather than allowing each shortlisted supplier to determine what it demonstrates, provide a structured agenda based on the firm’s requirements and scenarios, and manage the presentations against it. This ensures that each supplier is asked to demonstrate the same core capabilities and prevents the session drifting towards the features the supplier most wants to showcase.

Very few legal technology products operate in isolation. A new system may need to exchange information with Microsoft 365, finance applications, document management, digital dictation, identity platforms, client portals, AML services or other specialist applications.

Requirements should also be sufficiently specific to be tested during demonstrations and assessed objectively as part of the selection process. For example, ‘Good reporting’ tells a supplier very little. Identifying the reports the firm needs to produce, the information they need to contain and who needs access to them is much more useful. The same principle applies to workflow, integration, document production and AI functionality. This discipline matters because virtually every credible supplier will be able to answer ‘yes’ to broad questions. The real differences emerge when suppliers are required to demonstrate precisely how their technology will meet the firm’s priority requirements.

For example, ask each supplier to demonstrate how a new client and matter would be opened, how a particular workflow would operate, how information would be retrieved, or how a management report would be produced. For an AI application, provide representative use cases and ask suppliers to explain not only the output, but also the controls, safeguards and governance surrounding it. There should still be an opportunity for suppliers to demonstrate what differentiates their product, but only after the firm’s priority requirements have been addressed. Structured demonstrations turn a series of sales presentations into a meaningful, like-for-like evaluation.

This is where choosing the ‘best’ individual product can sometimes produce the wrong overall result. The objective should be to select the best fit for the firm’s overall technology environment, not simply the product with the longest feature list. A slightly less impressive product that integrates cleanly with the firm’s existing architecture may ultimately deliver considerably more value than a feature-rich system that requires complex integrations, additional infrastructure or duplicated data. Data also deserves particular attention. Where will information reside? Which system will be the authoritative source? How will existing data be migrated? How easily can the firm extract its data, and what happens if it changes supplier in future? With AI products there are further questions: what information is sent to the service, how is it processed and retained, is it used to train underlying models, and how will the firm maintain appropriate oversight and accountability for its use? These are not simply technical questions for the IT team. They can affect risk, compliance, cost and the firm’s ability to operate effectively, and should therefore be understood before a contract is signed rather than discovered during implementation.

The Writ Autumn 2026

8. What will it really cost? The licence price is rarely the total cost of new technology. Firms should instead consider the total cost of ownership (TCO) over the expected life of the system. Implementation, data migration, integrations, configuration, training, project management and internal staff time all need to be considered. There may also be costs associated with running old and new systems in parallel, retaining historical data, changing third-party interfaces or improving underlying infrastructure. Ongoing costs such as support, storage, additional licences and future upgrades should also be understood. And then there is the cost of organisational change. If a product requires lawyers and support teams to work differently, time and resource will be needed to achieve that change and ensure the technology is actually adopted. A system that appears inexpensive during procurement can become considerably more costly once these factors are included. Conversely, a product with a higher headline price may represent better value if it reduces manual effort, replaces other applications or simplifies the wider technology estate. Price and value are therefore not the same thing. The better comparison is the total cost of ownership against the benefits the firm reasonably expects the investment to deliver.

9. Are we evaluating the supplier as well as the software? Firms often spend months analysing functionality and comparatively little time evaluating the organisation that will be responsible for delivering and supporting it. The supplier can matter just as much as the software, particularly where the firm will depend on the system for business-critical processes. What experience does the supplier have of firms like yours? Who will actually undertake the implementation, and is that the supplier itself or a third party? What resources will be committed to the project? How strong is the support service? What is on the product roadmap and how frequently is the software updated? Can existing customers provide references, and are those references from firms of a comparable size, with similar practice areas and requirements? For strategically important systems, due diligence should go further.

Firms should consider the supplier’s commercial stability, information security and business continuity arrangements, as well as its ability to support the product over the period the firm expects to use it. It is also important to distinguish between what is demonstrated, what is promised and what is contractually committed to. Where functionality, integrations, implementation resources or timescales discussed during the sales process are important to the decision, ensure they are properly reflected in the contract, statement of work or other agreed project documentation. A compelling demonstration tells you what the software can do. It does not tell you whether the supplier can successfully deliver, support and develop it over the years ahead.

10. Are we ready to implement it? Selecting the product is not the end of the project. For a law firm, it is often the point at which the most difficult work begins: preparing data, changing established ways of working, managing expectations and keeping fee-earners engaged while the business continues to operate. Even very good technology can fail to deliver its expected benefits if implementation and adoption are poorly managed. A system can be technically live and still fail to achieve the outcome the firm expected from it. Successful projects require clear governance and responsibilities, realistic timelines, data preparation, configuration, testing and training. Firms also need to be realistic about the internal resource required. Implementation cannot simply be something people fit around their existing responsibilities without allowing sufficient time to do it properly.

Strategy before software Technology continues to develop at extraordinary speed, and artificial intelligence is accelerating that change. Law firms should absolutely explore the opportunities it creates. But new technology does not remove the need for disciplined decisionmaking. If anything, the growing number of products available makes that discipline more important. The firms most likely to make successful technology investments will not necessarily be those that move first or buy the product with the longest feature list. They will be the firms that are clearest about the problems they are trying to solve, understand what they already have, are disciplined about their requirements, test suppliers against realworld scenarios and are realistic about the work required to implement and adopt new technology successfully. Strategy before software is not a slogan. It is the discipline that helps firms choose technology that supports their objectives, strengthens their operations and avoids turning today’s enthusiasm into tomorrow’s expensive problem. Technology should follow the firm’s objectives - not determine them.

David Baskerville is a Consultant at Baskerville Drummond, ranked Tier 1 by Chambers and Partners in Lawtech Consulting, advising law firms on legal technology strategy, system selection and implementation.

Communication is equally important. People need to understand not simply how the new system works, but why the firm is introducing it, what will change and what is expected of them. Involving users throughout the project can also help identify practical issues before they become barriers to adoption. Training should not be regarded as a single event immediately before launch. Firms should expect to support users after go-live, monitor adoption and continue refining the system once it is being used in practice. The measure of success should not therefore be whether the software went live on time. It should be whether the firm achieved the business outcomes that justified the investment in the first place. 57

The Writ Autumn 2026

Giving Lawyers Time to Be Lawyers

AI, Conveyancing and the Challenge of a Small Jurisdiction John Fox Principal Solicitor and Founder of Lawri Fox Law

Both of us remain grounded in the conveyancing work familiar to the vast majority of firms in this jurisdiction.

Emma Fox Principal Solicitor and Founder of Lawri Fox Law

Neither discipline can be handed to a machine. But both are eaten alive by administration. That is what produced Lawri – a complete conveyancing platform driven by AI -; not a belief that AI could do our work, but that AI could actually let us do our work.

Ask a general-purpose AI model a question of Northern Ireland law. The answer arrives in seconds, well written, addressed squarely to this jurisdiction, and entirely confident that this is what it is giving you. The seams appear only on closer scrutiny. A form we do not use. A power of attorney described in terms belonging to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 rather than our own 1987 Order. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 quietly doing the work of the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. It never announces itself as English (or even some more distant jurisdiction) law. It presents as ours, with English authority sitting underneath, and nothing in the tone separates what is right from what is not. The AI system flags nothing, because confidence in these systems is a property of the writing rather than a measure of what is written. That is the real risk for a small jurisdiction. Not that AI will be wrong - sources have always been wrong, and we are trained to check. But that it will be wrong confidently, sounding no less certain where the material behind it is thin.

Where we come to this from Having been in practice for some time, we reached the same conclusion from opposite ends of the same office. Emma practises in family law, where outcomes often turn on facts no form was designed to capture. John practises in public law and legacy litigation, including representing families bereaved in the Omagh bombing. Different disciplines, same lesson: law exists precisely because individual cases rarely fit neatly into systems.

Why we built it We built it because we can read, analyse and understand how property title is established. That is not a boast; it is the point. Reading a title pack and deciding what needs resolved where it is not good, is the work. What is not the work is spending an afternoon checking whether a document falls within a lender's time period, chasing a pre-contract enquiry that should never have arisen, or rebuilding an AML file out of three inboxes. Residential conveyancing was always the bread and butter of the high street firm - steady, relational, often the transaction through which a firm first meets a family it will act for across a generation. It is now the area where the administrative burden has grown furthest out of proportion to the fee. Source of funds, source of wealth, digital identity, lender handbook conditions, compliance evidencing: the obligations arrive year on year, the fees do not move. Conveyancers now spend close to two-fifths of the working day chasing or being chased for updates. The Society counts over 530 firms in private practice across more than 70 locations mostly small firms serving their own towns, with no layer of support to absorb the load. And what such a firm gives, knowing the family and knowing the ground, is not nostalgia. It is a real advantage, eroded by administration rather than competition.

Developing technology for a small legal jurisdiction presents its own challenges. Unlike larger markets, there is relatively little structured legal data available and fewer opportunities to test systems against local practice. For that reason, Lawri has been developed with the support of Invest Northern Ireland and in collaboration with Ulster University. Bringing together practising solicitors, researchers and technical specialists has allowed us to address problems specific to this jurisdiction rather than assuming solutions developed elsewhere will necessarily fit here. That collaboration reflects the same principle that underpins the platform itself: technology should support professional judgement, not seek to replace it.

What Lawri is Lawri was built around a simple observation: most delay, frustration and cost in a residential conveyance arises not from difficult points of law, but from the administration surrounding them. The legal work remains the legal work. Establishing good title, identifying risk, advising on defects, satisfying lender requirements and guiding clients through significant transactions all require professional judgement. Yet much of a conveyancer's day is spent gathering information, evidencing compliance, tracking outstanding matters and searching for documents that already exist somewhere within the file. The growth of regulatory obligations has made that imbalance more acute. Source of funds and source of wealth enquiries, identity verification, lender requirements, Home Charter obligations, anti-money laundering records and file compliance all serve legitimate purposes. The difficulty is that each demands evidence, monitoring and record-keeping, often across multiple systems and at multiple stages of a transaction.

Lawri exists to give that time back. To let lawyers be lawyers again. That is the Lawri way, and it is the whole of the ambition.

‘Lawri is built for lawyers. AI helps. Lawyers do law.’ 58

The Writ Autumn 2026

The consequence is familiar to every conveyancer. Information is requested more than once. Clients are uncertain what remains outstanding. Firms spend time reconstructing compliance histories rather than progressing matters. Correspondence accumulates, enquiries multiply and routine issues absorb disproportionate amounts of professional time. Lawri was designed to address that administrative layer. It provides one structured environment through which parties can exchange information, complete onboarding requirements, monitor progress and maintain the evidential record that modern transactions require. By organising and checking information as a transaction progresses, it seeks to reduce avoidable delay, unnecessary duplication and the repetition that has become so much a feature of modern conveyancing practice. Importantly, it is not designed to give legal advice or make legal decisions. Its purpose is narrower than that. It assists with the management, organisation and verification of information so that solicitors can focus on the aspects of a transaction that require legal skill and professional judgment. In that sense, the objective is not automation for its own sake. It is to remove administration from the path of professional work. The measure of success is not what the platform does, but the amount of time it returns to the lawyer.

The legal basis That Lawri does not advise is not marketing. It is the basis on which any such tool can properly be deployed. The Guidance on the Responsible Use of AI, published by the Society’s Law Tech Group in May 2026, is unambiguous. Use of AI must be fully consistent with a solicitor's existing professional responsibilities and duties to the courts and clients, and where a solicitor reasonably believes it would interfere with those duties, they should not use it. Failure to use or supervise it responsibly may attract Society sanction or referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal. AI may assist with a first draft. It should not be responsible for the final one. Anyone treating that as theoretical should read R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin), where the Divisional Court dealt with written arguments containing fabricated authorities.

Interestingly, the case outlined the possibility that ordinary internet searches had returned AI-generated summaries. It is remarkably easy to use these systems without knowing it. But the basics of being a lawyer have not changed. Confidentiality runs the same way: confidential material should not be given to systems the firm does not directly manage, and privileged material must never go near unsecure systems, because that risks waiver. Firms will differ on where the line falls - but the decision must be taken deliberately and recorded, not reached by default because something was convenient. There is a jurisdictional question too. The European Commission has proposed applying the EU AI Act here under Article 13(4) of the Windsor Framework, and the UK Government is assessing it - which could leave us the only part of the United Kingdom where the Act bites directly. South of the border, the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Act 2026 has established the AI Office of Ireland, and the High Court has a practice direction on generative AI in court documents. For a border practice, none of that is academic.

The absurdity of scale Large language models are engines of statistical regularity: good at whatever there is a great deal of. Their confidence tracks data volume - and data volume tracks population, publication and litigation spend, not legal importance. Northern Ireland loses that arithmetic comfortably. Fewer than two million people, a distinct land law, our own Land Registry and Registry of Deeds, ground rents and fee farm grants, our own rating system, our own Court of Judicature. Our reported case law is a rounding error beside England and Wales. The AI system fills our gaps with the nearest abundant neighbour, and without hesitation, because hesitation is not a feature of the architecture. It is not lying. It has no concept of jurisdiction - only of what usually follows. The same arithmetic operates within jurisdictions, and that deserves more attention than it gets. A system learning what a case looks like from the volume of cases learns the well-represented case: the standard title, the conventional family, the commercially advised client.

What it learns least well is the unusual client - the succession turning on capacity, the applicant whose disability changes how a statutory test applies, the litigant whose community's dealings with the State are the very thing in issue. In legal aid, public law and capacity work, those are not edge cases. They are frequently the case - and structurally the matters about which the AI system knows least about yet will doubt itself no more. Put those together and the real risk appears. It is not the hallucinated citation, embarrassing as those have proved. It is drift. Tools of this kind pull quietly toward the standard answer. The template that fits most files becomes the template used on all files. The workflow built for the ordinary transaction begins to define what counts as ordinary. The unusual client is not refused - the unusual client is processed, and the feature that made the case unusual, very often the feature on which it turned, does not survive. The consequence is not overt discrimination. It is that the uncommon fact, the unusual circumstance or the marginal case becomes progressively less visible. Efficiency achieved that way is not efficiency. It is the cost of the atypical case, recorded as a saving. That is why a tool like this has to be built by practitioners here rather than imported: confined to one field we know, and designed to surface anomalies rather than smooth them. A general model cannot be, because it does not know that anything is unusual.

The lawyer remains the lawyer None of this is an argument against the technology. Research cited by the Society suggests some 89% of legal professionals across the UK and Ireland now use AI in some capacity. That train has left. But the value of these tools lies in their limits. AI can read faster than we can and never forget the twelfth requisition. It cannot advise a bereaved family. It cannot judge whether a title defect is one to insure or one to fight. It cannot tell what a client actually needs as against what they asked for. It cannot carry the professional obligation, because obligations attach to persons. As the Chair of the Society's Emerging Technologies Sub-Group put it, ‘AI cannot replace the skills, experiences or empathy offered by a local solicitor.’ Lawri is built for lawyers. AI helps. Lawyers do law. That distinction matters everywhere. In a small jurisdiction, it matters even more. 59

The Writ Autumn 2026

Developments in Digital Assets Fiona Kirkpatrick Partner Tughans

For centuries, Wills and estate planning have been concerned primarily with traditional assets such as real property, bank accounts, investments and personal possessions. However, increasingly in modern times, individuals are accumulating significant wealth and value in digital form. From cryptocurrency holdings and online investment accounts to cloud storage, social media profiles and digital intellectual property, digital assets of some kind now form an important part of almost every estate.

What are digital assets? The term ‘digital assets’ encompasses a wide range of property and rights existing in electronic form. Examples include: • Cryptocurrency holdings • Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) • Online trading and investment accounts • Domain names • Digital artwork and intellectual property • Cloud-based document storage • Email accounts • Social media accounts • Digital business assets and online revenue streams • Loyalty points and certain online rewards programmes Not all digital assets are legally identical. Some may represent property interests with significant financial value, while others may consist primarily of contractual rights governed by the terms and conditions of the relevant platform. As a result, each digital asset must be considered individually when assessing succession, ownership and estate administration issues.

The Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 A significant recent development in this area has been the enactment of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025 (‘the 2025 Act’),

1 2

which received Royal Assent on 2 December 2025 and applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland1.

Indeed, practical administration frequently presents greater difficulties than legal recognition.

Historically, our common law recognised two principal categories of personal property:

Identification of digital assets

• ‘Things in possession,’ being tangible assets capable of physical possession; and • ‘Things in action,’ being rights enforceable through legal action, such as debts or contractual claims. Certain digital assets, such as crypto tokens, did not fit comfortably within either category. Although a growing body of case law had recognised that such assets could attract proprietary rights, some uncertainty remained due to older authorities which suggested that the traditional categories of personal property were exhaustive. The 2025 Act addresses this uncertainty through a short but significant provision:

Unlike a property title or bank statement, digital assets may leave little obvious documentary evidence. A substantial cryptocurrency portfolio, for example, can be effectively invisible unless records have been maintained during one’s lifetime. Individuals should therefore consider maintaining a secure inventory recording: • The nature of their digital assets; • The platform or provider used; • Wallet or account references; • Access procedures;

‘A thing (including a thing that is digital or electronic in nature) is not prevented from being the object of personal property rights merely because it is neither (a) a thing in possession, nor (b) a thing in action.’2 In practical terms, the legislation confirms that digital assets are capable of attracting property rights even where they do not fit within the traditional common law categories. Importantly however, the 2025 Act does not specify which digital assets will constitute property in every circumstance. Nor does it attempt to define the boundaries of this emerging category. Instead, Parliament has deliberately left the courts to continue developing the law on a case-by-case basis as technology evolves.

What does this mean for estate planning? The 2025 Act strengthens the legal foundation for including digital assets within estate planning arrangements, but it does not remove the practical challenges associated with identifying, accessing and administering those assets after death (or indeed upon a person’s incapacity, when an Attorney or Controller may encounter similar difficulties).

Scotland has separate legislation in the form of the Digital Assets (Scotland) Act 2026. Property (Digital Assets etc) Act 2025, s1.

One of the most common problems encountered during estate administration is that personal representatives simply do not know that digital assets exist.

• Relevant contact details; and • Any restrictions on transfer or succession. The inventory itself should be stored securely and reviewed regularly. That said, devising a way in which to record such information securely in a way that can also be easily located and accessed by personal representatives is itself a challenge which must be acknowledged.

Accessibility following death Establishing ownership of a digital asset, or authority over it, does not necessarily mean that a personal representative can easily obtain access to it. Many digital assets are protected by passwords, more robust measures including encryption or two-factor authentication, or even by platform-specific procedures. In the case of cryptocurrencies, the loss of a private key can render substantial value permanently inaccessible.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Accordingly, effective estate planning should now consider not only who is intended to benefit from digital assets, but also how authorised persons will be able to locate and access them at the relevant time.

Wills and digital assets Wills should be reviewed to ensure that they adequately deal with digital property. Depending on the circumstances, it may be prudent or appropriate to include specific legacies of valuable digital assets. Consideration may also be given to the granting of express powers enabling executors to access and manage digital accounts or holdings. That said, given the pace of technological change, it would be sensible for such powers to be drafted with sufficient flexibility to accommodate categories of digital asset or access issues that may not yet exist at the date of execution – but will drafters will likely agree that this may be easier said than done! Suffice it to say that for many clients, digital assets are now significant enough that they should form part of the wider estate planning discussion rather than being treated as an afterthought.

Trusts and digital assets Similarly, the management of digital assets is likely to become increasingly relevant for trustees in the administration of trusts in the modern age. Careful consideration should be given to particular trustee powers, custody arrangements and practical mechanisms for securing access to digital assets. The highly technical nature of certain assets, particularly cryptocurrencies, may require bespoke drafting and specialist advice.

European Law Institute Model Rules While the 2025 Act provides important legal recognition that digital assets can attract property rights, as already noted, significant obstacles still remain regarding access to digital accounts, personal communications and online content. A notable recent development is the approval of the European Law Institute's (ELI) Model Rules on Succession and Access to Digital Remains (‘the Model Rules’). Developed with support from the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, the Model Rules seek to ‘provide the first comprehensive framework for dealing with digital assets and personal digital content after death’3.

Although not legally binding on any jurisdiction, they represent an important contribution to the international discussion on digital succession and are intended to help shape future legislative and policy developments. One of the most significant aspects of the Model Rules is the recognition that not all digital assets should be treated in the same way. The Model Rules distinguish between: • Digital assets with economic value, such as cryptocurrencies and other transferable digital property, which are dealt with through ordinary succession principles; and • Personal digital remains, including emails, social media accounts and other content closely connected to an individual's identity, which are treated differently and subject to safeguards concerning access and privacy. This distinction reflects a growing recognition that digital estates contain far more than financial assets. A person's online presence may include private communications, photographs, cloud-based records, social media activity and other forms of digital content carrying significant personal and emotional value. The Model Rules therefore seek to balance succession rights with the privacy, dignity and wishes of the deceased, as well as the rights of third parties whose information may be contained within digital accounts. The Model Rules also address emerging issues which are likely to become increasingly relevant for modern estates including the treatment of AI-generated material, the role of online service providers, and succession issues relating to cross-border digital estates.

Tax considerations The tax treatment of digital assets should not be overlooked. HMRC's Cryptoassets Manual4 confirms that cryptoassets are regarded as property for inheritance tax purposes. HMRC further notes that situs considerations may be relevant when dealing with internationally connected individuals and trusts.5 As the ownership and location of digital assets frequently transcend national borders, international tax issues can quickly arise, particularly where clients hold assets through offshore exchanges or maintain connections with multiple jurisdictions.

Increasing regulatory scrutiny Alongside these developments, the regulatory environment surrounding cryptoassets continues to evolve. The Reporting Cryptoasset Service Providers (Due Diligence and Reporting Requirements) Regulations 2025 came into force on 1 January 2026. These regulations implement the UK's Cryptoasset Reporting Framework obligations and require certain cryptoasset service providers to collect and report user and transaction information to HMRC. While these reporting obligations primarily affect service providers rather than private individuals, they reflect a broader trend towards increased transparency and regulatory oversight within the digital asset sector.

Looking ahead The enactment of the 2025 Act represents an important milestone in the legal recognition of digital assets. The legislation provides greater certainty that digital assets can be protected by property rights and form part of an individual's estate, while allowing the courts flexibility to adapt the law as technology develops. However, legal recognition is only one part of effective succession planning. The practical issues of identification, access, valuation and administration remain critical. As more sophisticated digital assets become increasingly common, individuals who fail to incorporate them into their estate planning risk leaving significant value inaccessible or overlooked. For many clients, reviewing digital assets should now be regarded as an essential component of any modern estate planning exercise. Looking ahead, the debate is already moving beyond whether digital assets constitute property. Increasing attention is being paid to the wider concept of a person's ‘digital estate,’ including personal digital remains, online identity, access rights and AI-generated content. The ELI Model Rules demonstrate how policymakers and practitioners are beginning to grapple with these issues. While not yet part of UK law, they provide a useful indication of the direction in which digital succession law may develop in the coming years.

Specialist advice should therefore be sought where significant digital asset holdings are involved.

European Law Institute, Model Rules on Succession and Access to Digital Remains, see https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/news-events/news-contd/news/eli-approvesgroundbreaking-model-rules-on-succession-and-access-to-digital-remains/ See https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/cryptoassets-manual 5 HMRC Cryptoassets Manual, CRYPTO25000. 3

The Writ Autumn 2026

Modernising courts and tribunals services in Northern Ireland Pamela Reid Programme Manager Themis The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS) is undertaking one of the most significant transformation programmes in the Northern Ireland public sector and represents a major opportunity to modernise how courts and tribunals services are delivered. Themis, delivered as part of the wider NICTS Vision 2030 modernisation portfolio, will introduce a new digital solution for courts and tribunals, supported by modernised and redesigned services for those who interact with the justice system.

5 year timeline

arr timeline timeline

2025 2025

Discovery, Discovery,Comms Comms perating erating Model Model

2027 2027

bunals unals &&Civil Civil

2025

2026

Strategy, Discovery, Comms & Operating Model

Small Claims Pilot

The programme combines three strands: User-centred design of services; NICTS Operating Model and Business Transformation; and IT provision. That combination is essential as digital technology will enable change, but the value for users, including the legal profession, will come from redesigned journeys, clearer online information, better support, more efficient administration and a more consistent approach across courts and tribunals business. Expected benefits include a new secure web portal to initiate and pay for cases, the digital submission of information, online case tracking, digital case files, e-bundles, automated notifications and alerts, improved management information and clearer guidance for service users. The programme 2027 2028 2029 also aims to significantly reduce paper Tribunals & Civil Civil (inc. EJO) & Family Criminal dependency and will support more efficient, automated workflows for NICTS staff, the judiciary and other court users including the legal profession.

2026 2026

2027 2027

2028 2028

Small SmallClaims ClaimsPilot Pilot

Tribunals Tribunals&&Civil Civil

Civil Civil(inc. (inc.EJO) EJO)&&Family Family

2028 2028

2029 2029

Civil Civil(inc. (inc.EJO) EJO)&&Family Family

Criminal Criminal

2029 2029

Small Claims: the first Imagery Imagery Criminal Criminal transformed Themis service

ICOS accounts will no longer be available to pay for Small Claims once the Themis service is live for that business area. Instead, firms will be able to pay on the portal using card, Apple Pay and Google Pay. A new online Public Court Lists service will also be introduced for Small Claims in November. This service will be mobiledevice enabled and will provide a more accessible service than the existing ICOS Public Court Lists online. As services transition to Themis, this type of improvement should make it easier for court users to see where cases are listed. Imagery

Themis will be introduced incrementally, starting with Small Claims which will go live on 30 November 2026, following the completion of successful user acceptance testing. The current Small Claims Online service and associated ICOS functionality will be replaced by the Themis Small Claims Portal and new Themis case management system. The secure portal will be accessible through desktops and from mobile devices. OFFICIAL

For the legal profession and litigants in Solicitors initiating Small Claims proceedings person the programme is important because will be required to do so digitally by default, it will change how proceedings are initiated, using the new portal to create, pay for and managed, tracked and concluded, and how progress cases including the submission of people interact with NICTS. Themis is not supporting evidence. Litigants in person will simply an IT project. Instead, Themis is OFFICIAL OFFICIAL be encouraged and signposted to submit intended to deliver business transformation, their applications through the new digital with user-centred design at its core, and portal; however, paper applications will still will incrementally replace ageing line-ofbe accepted. The new service is expected business systems, including ICOS (the to provide a more modern and efficient court operations IT system) and JEMS experience. Solicitor firms will have firm(the Enforcement of Judgments Office OFFICIAL OFFICIAL level administrative capabilities, enabling IT system), with modernised digital them to securely and independently manage services that are easier to access access and case assignments within their and use. organisation. All digital users will securely authenticate and access Themis online services using Northern Ireland Identity Assurance (NIDA) via NIDirect. Themis will also provide support arrangements, including a helpdesk, to assist users as they begin using the new service. 62

Once proceedings are initiated, participants and their legal representatives will be able to track case progress online and will receive digital notifications at key points in the Small Claim journey. Themis will also introduce a digital case file, moving away from paper files in court offices and supporting the use of e-bundles within the courtroom. Whilst cases can be initiated online, Small Claims respondent packs will continue to be served by post.

OFFICIAL

User engagement, testing and training Engagement with the legal profession and other court users, along with court staff and the judiciary, has informed the design of the new digital Small Claims journey. NICTS is currently undertaking extensive user acceptance testing, with testing expected to continue until October. The programme will also seek input from the legal profession. That engagement is vital as the success of Themis depends on building the confidence of staff, judiciary, solicitors and other court users that the system reflects user needs.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Training for the legal profession is being planned for November. This training will be provided virtually through half day training sessions, with supporting guidance materials and ‘how to’ videos being developed to help solicitor firms prepare for and use the new service. Details of the upcoming training events and dates will be issued in due course.

Technology within hearing rooms will also be an important part of this wider change, enabling easy access to the digital case file and e-bundle and reducing paper handling within hearings. Engagement with change champions and dedicated user forums remain important as these tribunal services are developed, tested and refined.

Building the foundations for wider transformation

Licensing: from manual processes to a digital case journey

While Small Claims will provide the first practical demonstration of Themis in operation, it is only the beginning of a much wider programme of transformation.

Design workshops have taken place with a broad spectrum of stakeholders, including the legal profession. A Licensing service blueprint is currently being finalised, which sets out how licensing can move from its manual paper processes to a digital case journey from initiation to conclusion.

The phased approach is intentional: each business area brings its own users, processes, legislative context and operational requirements. By progressing incrementally, NICTS can apply lessons from early implementation. For some areas, Themis will replace legacy line-of-business systems (ICOS and JEMS); for others, such as Tribunals and Licensing, it will introduce new digital and case management capability where no digital case management system currently exist and where processes are predominately manual. Tribunals will be the next area of implementation in 2027, followed by Licensing as we move into Themis implementation within Civil.

Tribunals: designing services around users The implementation of Themis will support a broad and varied landscape across fourteen tribunal areas within NICTS. With the involvement of staff, legal representatives, public bodies, appellants, panel members and tribunal office holders, service blueprints were designed during 2025 and outline how each tribunal service will operate in future. The user-centred design process has considered both represented and unrepresented parties as well as the operational needs of the tribunals administration. Tribunals are currently in the detailed IT design and development stage, with the first milestone being the introduction of a digital solution for tribunal panel members to record their availability on Themis, which is planned for implementation in January 2027, with the end-to-end delivery for individual tribunals following later in 2027. For the legal profession, many of the principles developed through Small Claims will carry through to Tribunals. Case initiation, progression and tracking will increasingly be available online, helping reduce the reliance on telephone or email updates for routine queries.

The future licensing service is expected to support digital case creation, progression and management through the Themis online portal. As with Tribunals, this is significant because Licensing does not currently have a dedicated case management system. A digital model will create more consistent processes across court offices, improve visibility of case progress and support more efficient handling of applications, documents and information. The Licensing service will provide digital notifications to relevant parties once a licence has been granted, along with the creation of a digital licence register. The intention is that the register will be searchable upon payment of the appropriate fee, thereby supporting improved access to licensing information while maintaining safeguards. The programme is also considering how licensing information may be shared digitally with relevant public bodies.

Accreditation and legislation As Themis develops across business areas, accreditation, information assurance and data protection will remain central to design considerations. Themis must support secure access, appropriate user permissions, auditability and the application of appropriate retention and disposal policies. The programme has embedded a legislative workstream as some future digital services may require changes to court rules or legislation to remove barriers to digital working or to enable new processes to be adopted. This legislative review is essential to ensuring that the service design, operating model and legal framework move together rather than in isolation.

Beyond Small Claims, Tribunals and Licensing, the programme is beginning to move into Service Blueprinting for County Court Civil. This will be followed by High Court Civil business, Magistrates’ Court Civil business and will conclude civil with the Enforcement of Judgments Office (EJO) in 2028. After Civil has been designed, the programme will move into Family and then Criminal service design, with full implementation of Themis planned to complete in 2029. For the legal profession, as a key user, the message remains one of early and continued engagement. Themis will affect how practitioners interact with courts and tribunals over time, but it also provides an opportunity for solicitors to help shape future services that support more efficient case progression, clearer communication and better access to information. Themis will not remove traditional channels overnight. However, moving incrementally to a ‘digital by default’ principle for the legal profession marks a move towards the provision of digital services that are more accessible, efficient, transparent and usercentred to suit the modern era we live in. As Small Claims moves towards go-live, the legal profession will begin to see what Themis means in practical terms with a new portal, enhanced processes and a more digital court experience – and provides a taste of the benefits that can be experienced by end users. Through continued engagement with court and tribunal users, the judiciary, NICTS staff and the legal profession, Themis can help build a justice service that is better equipped for the future while remaining focused on the needs of those who rely on it every day. NICTS will continue to provide regular Themis updates through established channels, including engagement with the Society and programme communications including the monthly Themis Newsletter. Further information will be issued via the Society on Themis testing opportunities, training sessions, account set-up and go-live arrangements. For further information about the Themis programme, please get in touch via email: modernisation@courtsni.gov.uk

Looking ahead

The Writ Autumn 2026

Modernising Land Registers An update for the profession

Christine Farrell Director of Land Registration Land & Property Services Over the past year, the Land Registration digitisation project has continued to make good progress. This update highlights key developments, explains how solicitor feedback is helping to shape the service, and outlines the steps firms can take to get ready for the new Land Registry IT system.

Engagement with the profession Our digitisation project remains a significant investment in the future of land registration provision and will support solicitors, lenders, public bodies and other professional users who depend on accurate, efficient and accessible registration services. Land registration processes sit at the heart of conveyancing practice and directly impact upon the assistance that firms provide to clients. The new registration system will simplify submissions, improve visibility of application progress, support digital payments and reduce reliance on paper-based processes.

It will also provide a stronger foundation for future service improvement as digital technology continues to evolve. Engagement with the profession has remained central to the project. In autumn 2025, Land & Property Services (LPS) hosted seven regional solicitor events across Northern Ireland, meeting more than 200 representatives from solicitor firms. These sessions provided an opportunity to share the future service vision, outline digital functionality and gather practical feedback from those who use Land Registration Services daily. A follow-up virtual session enabled a further 74 solicitors to receive updates and contribute their views remotely. A further day of workshops at LPS offices in March 2026 explored user journeys for Ground Rents, Registry of Deeds and Statutory Charges services. These sessions helped test how the developing platform will support real-life professional workflows and allowed LPS to capture the practical considerations that matter most to firms.

Participants highlighted the importance of clear communication, straightforward submission processes, meaningful management information and a solution that works effectively for firms of different sizes and operating models. Responses to the Land Registration Legislation Consultation issued by LPS also demonstrated strong support for the proposed changes. 58 responses were received, with more than 93% supporting the legislative changes required to enable digital services. The feedback provided is now helping to inform the legislative framework underpinning future service delivery.

From engagement to preparation As LPS moves from engagement and design towards implementation, our focus is on helping firms to understand what will change and how to prepare. LPS will introduce this change in a managed, supportive way, giving firms time, clarity, practical assistance and training ahead of each rollout stage of the new solution. Engagement will continue through demonstrations, user testing, feedback activities, training events and CPD-linked sessions, where appropriate.

The Writ Autumn 2026

How firms can prepare for the new land registration system Although detailed implementation guidance and timelines will be issued ahead of each phase, firms can start to consider the following practical areas now: 1. IDENTIFY PRIMARY CONTACTS FOR USER MANAGEMENT Each firm will be able to manage its own users in the new system at organisational level without the need to contact Land Registry. Practitioners should consider identifying who should act as the main point of contact for user enrolment, ongoing management and related communications from LPS. This may include considering who has the appropriate authority and operational knowledge to support set-up and ongoing administration. 2. CONSIDER WHO SHOULD ATTEND TRAINING With around 15,300 unique users currently accessing our services, places at trainer-led sessions will be limited so that support can reach as broad a cross-section of users as possible. LPS intends to allocate two places at trainer-led sessions to each solicitor firm currently using LandWeb, although additional places may be allocated depending upon uptake and availability. Firms may wish to consider which colleagues would benefit most from attending.

These individuals should be those that are empowered to champion the new system, help colleagues understand any new processes and provide first-line support within a solicitor’s firm. All users will have access to comprehensive online training materials and guidance on an ongoing basis. 3. REVIEW INTERNAL PROCESSES Digital submission may affect how work is allocated, checked, approved or monitored within firms. To take advantage of the efficiencies created by digital submission processes, your firm may wish to review its current conveyancing and registration processes to identify where adjustments may be useful. Examples might be how client information is gathered, how documents are prepared, how applications are reviewed before submission, or how progress updates are shared internally and externally. 4. ASSESS DIGITAL PAYMENT READINESS The transition from cheque-based payment methods to digital payments will include facilities to take payment from suspense accounts, via direct debit or by credit card for application submission. This may require firms to consider their existing financial processes by identifying internal approvers for fee payments and reviewing reconciliation arrangements, client account considerations, or the practical steps needed to support secure and efficient payment through the new system.

5. LOOK OUT FOR FUTURE COMMUNICATIONS FROM LPS Updates will continue to be shared through direct communications, project newsletters, the Improving Land Registers website and the Society’s E-nformer bulletin. Communications will increase over the coming months as design and implementation progresses and demos, system enrolment, testing and training will be announced in due course.

One year on from the launch of the project, the modernisation of Land Registration services continues to be a key priority for LPS. Thank you to all members of the legal profession who have contributed to the project so far. Your insight continues to help shape a service that supports professional practice and improves the user experience which will provide a sustainable platform for the future of land registration. Your feedback is welcome at any time via email to improvinglandregistersni@financeni.gov.uk.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Why AI? – A comment from an amused onlooker

Philip Wood CBE, KC (hon) Retired practitioner

Therefore, the future of law and lawyers is that they have no future. Really? To my mind, AI has arrived just in time. One reason is that the law, not just in Northern Ireland but around the world, is now uncontrollable, unmanageable. It is a leviathan and a behemoth. We can take a couple of the domains of law to put this to the test. The number of regulatory fields in developed countries now runs to several hundred. The larger regulatory sets are specialisms on their own which even experts can barely understand as a whole. They include the regulation of banks, insurers and financial business - one of the largest fields, abstruse and esoteric. They include the intricacy of competition regulation. They include the protection of personal data, environmental law and the protection of nature, land planning, pharmaceuticals, health and safety, building regulations, transportation, huge regions of science, food, trades and professions, prospectuses, education, equality statutes, employment law, consumer law, land rentals, tariffs, public procurement, immigration, disclosure of large shareholdings in public companies. The list goes to the moon and back.

Amidst all the tumult and turbulence and the confused bewilderment of our times, few things seem to have aroused in otherwise rational and sensible lawyers such a sense of doom, even an apocalypse, as the arrival of AI. To many lawyers, AI has arrived with the suddenness of the terrible charioteer, a monster and a beast, who is completely without form or shape or materiality, hellbent on consuming all lawyers, all courts, all legal faculties at the universities and all the scriptures of law in one terrifying gulp.

That is before we even get on to taxation, a topic of such immensity and obscurity that few lawyers have the endurance and dogged courage to cope with it and instead rather hope to call up an accountant. The result is that even something so basic to any legal transaction as legal data has become insuperable. This precedes the point when we get to the real work - the documents, the pleadings, the negotiation, the judgement of risk, forecasts about the future, the assessment of bargaining power, the persuasion, the disruption caused by the vagaries of present and future politics, and all of the other aspects which require uniquely individual human intelligence informed by the law. However, there is another aspect, often overlooked. One can fairly propose that the laws of a jurisdiction are the biggest and most comprehensive codes of conduct which that jurisdiction has. They are immeasurably larger in scope and coverage then other codes, such as religions, political philosophies or private philosophies of one's personal life, valuable that these may be.

These codes of conduct are the credentials of a civilisation, the means by which we are judged, a kind of ideology. The codes of conduct are needed not just for well-being, prosperity, the advance of science and the arts, and all the other things which make life worthwhile, but for survival itself. There could be no democracy or control of criminality or taxation without laws. Without laws, there would be mayhem, havoc and anarchy. Laws are necessary for survival. We know that humanity can sometimes do silly things sometimes. But I would venture to suggest that we are unlikely to allow our fundamental codes for survival, to be delegated to a robot. Roll on AI. It is needed. So are we.

The author, Philip Wood CBE, KC (hon), was a partner for many years in Allen & Overy, (now A&O Shearman) and has retired as a practitioner. His latest book is Survival Codes: World Law and the Future of Humanity.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Peoplesafe Member Offer For many solicitors, the risks of the job don't end at the office door. Client meetings, home visits and lone travel between locations can occasionally bring a more personal threat - being followed, or stalked, by someone connected to a case.

Feeling followed or stalked is frightening on its own. Feeling that way while working alone, with no one nearby who knows where you are, makes it harder still. It's a risk the Law Society of Northern Ireland has raised with us on behalf of its members, and one that standard office security doesn't reach.

Every incident is also logged and time-stamped automatically, building a clear record of what happened, when and where. For members considering a harassment report or protective order, that evidence can make a genuine difference.

You meet clients in unfamiliar settings, travel between court, chambers and client premises, and often represent people going through the most difficult moments of their lives. Occasionally, those moments follow you afterwards a client who won't let go, an opposing party who takes it personally, someone who starts turning up where you didn't expect them.

Peoplesafe gives Law Society of Northern Ireland members a practical way to work with confidence, wherever the job takes you. Our discreet lone worker app and dedicated devices let you raise an alert without drawing attention. It's exactly what's needed when reaching for a phone isn't safe.

This isn't about restricting how or where you practise. It's about making sure that wherever your work takes you - a client's home, an empty car park, a lone evening in the office someone is there to support you.

Every alert reaches our UK-based Alarm Receiving Centre which is staffed around the clock by trained operators who answer alarms in four seconds on average. They can listen in, talk to you when you feel unsafe, track your precise location in real time, and contact the police on your behalf - so you're never facing a threatening situation alone.

Member Offer Peoplesafe is offering members a 25% discount off the RRP of their subscription-based products, as well as no upfront device or app costs that would normally apply through the online store.

We already protect over 375,000 lone workers across the UK, including many in legal and professional services, and would welcome the chance to do the same for Law Society of Northern Ireland members.

For more information on the work the Law Society of Northern Ireland is doing to support solicitor safety please visit: Solicitor Safety | The Law Society of Northern Ireland

To find out more, or to arrange a no-obligation conversation, contact Carlos Neves at Peoplesafe on carlos.neves@peoplesafe.co.uk or 020 3909 0793.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Dates for your Diary Event

Location

Date

Time

Conveyancing Conference

Titanic Belfast

13 October 2026

Conveyancing Conference from 9:30am

2026 Conference and Dinner

Lough Erne Hotel, Enniskillen

6 November 2026

2026 Conference Registration from 9:00am

Annual Dinner

Culloden Hotel & Spa Resort

10 December 2026

Dinner from 7:30pm

Small Practice Cluster Events: Book your Place

Date

In Partnership with Local Associations

Venue

Thursday 22 October 2026

Lisburn | Down | Ards & North Down

Millbrook Lodge, Ballynahinch

Thursday 12 November 2026

Derry ~ Londonderry

Everglades Hotel, Londonderry

Thursday 19 November 2026

Portadown & Lurgan | Armagh | Newry & Banbridge

Seagoe Hotel, Portadown

The Writ Autumn 2026

Conveyancing Conference 2026 Tuesday 13 October Titanic Belfast, BT3 9EP

Annual Dinner 2026 Culloden Estate & Spa Thursday 10 th December 2026 Prizes and Guest Speakers to be announced soon!

The Writ Autumn 2026

The Young Solicitor and The Rise of AI James Greene Northern Ireland Young Solicitors Association (NIYSA) Solicitor, Elliotts Legal Legal precedent is a central component of the law in the UK. We look backwards to understand the law, relying on what came before to determine what comes next. That instinct is fundamental to legal practice, but it can also engender a natural conservatism when the profession is confronted with change. The world around the profession is changing faster than case law and precedent ever can. For Northern Ireland’s legal profession, that change is increasingly digital. Reputation once travelled largely by word of mouth and personal recommendation. Today, it travels through search engines, websites, LinkedIn, reviews, video and, increasingly, artificial intelligence (AI). A prospective client can research a solicitor, compare firms and form an opinion before ever making contact. At the same time, young solicitors are entering the profession having grown up in an environment where technology is already embedded in how they learn, communicate and work. For young solicitors, AI is something that will shape much of our careers and the profession must manage that change and consider how to adapt to the rise of AI.

We are already the AI generation AI is already part of our education, professional networks and, increasingly, our working lives. Research published by the Higher Education Policy Institute in 2025 found that 92% of UK undergraduates had used AI in some form, compared with 66% the previous year. AI was utilised to explain concepts, summarise material, suggest research ideas and improve written work. Those students are now entering the workplace, including the legal profession.

A young solicitor or a trainee joining a firm today may not appreciate that their firm’s implementation of AI is novel or forward thinking, when in reality it is. For a junior staff member, AI is already a familiar tool and not a distant concept. That does not mean young solicitors will regard AI as infallible. There is considerable awareness of the limitations, including hallucinations, fabricated authorities/ citations and inaccurate information. The challenge therefore is not to introduce young solicitors to AI. Indeed, a young solicitor, susceptible to mistakes but comfortable with AI can complement any firm, with the proper senior supervision and guidance.

The client has changed too AI forms part of a much wider change in consumer expectations. For generations, choosing a solicitor was largely a matter of reputation, with recommendations driven by the provision of good service. Whilst a personal recommendation remains hugely important today, clients increasingly expect more than just competent legal advice. Clients expect prompt access to the firm, user friendly websites, timely email responses, swift communication and readily available information. A prospective client can now research a firm, look at its solicitors, examine its expertise and compare it with competitors before making contact. By the time the solicitor answers the telephone or responds to an email, the client has carried out their own due diligence. In Northern Ireland, the legal market is comparatively small and reputation is key. Whilst a firm’s credibility continues to be dependent on the quality of its work, sound legal advice is an obvious expectation and therefore our reputation is increasingly influenced by other factors including our digital presence and the experience it provides before the client even walks through the door.

The NIYSA exists to support solicitors in the early stages of their careers. For more information or to get in touch with the group, contact us at info@niysa.legal

Young solicitors are part of that same consumer culture. We have grown up using technology to compare services, communicate with businesses and access information. It is therefore unsurprising that the next generation of lawyers may also have different expectations about how professional services should operate.

What can AI offer young solicitors? There is a clear attraction to AI for those of us at the beginning of our careers. Much of the traditional work involved in learning to become a solicitor is repetitive: reviewing documents, summarising correspondence, preparing chronologies, comparing agreements and undertaking preliminary research. Used correctly, AI could assist young solicitors in streamlining some of those mechanical tasks and permit more time to be spent on developing skills that technology cannot easily replace, including advocacy, negotiation, strategy and client relationships. That is not to say that young solicitors should delegate all these tasks to AI. An internet outage or an unresponsive AI tool would leave a complacent solicitor compromised and the development of these skills therefore cannot be neglected. Ultimately, AI should be used to circumvent unnecessary friction in legal work so that solicitors can spend more time where professional judgement adds the greatest value. Indeed, this could also be beneficial to the client, who may be unconcerned that AI was used to summarise a lengthy document, but would no doubt welcome an accelerated processing of the issues resulting in prompt advice with potential costs savings.

The Writ Autumn 2026

The traditional training ground Much of our professional development traditionally comes from doing the less glamorous and often mundane work. This work teaches accuracy, attention to detail and legal instinct. If these tasks are increasingly entrusted to AI, firms will need to think carefully about how young solicitors can acquire these fundamental skills. The more immediate question therefore is, not whether AI will replace solicitors, but whether it will change how young graduates develop and hone their skills. Technology must not remove the opportunity to learn. If technology eliminates some routine work and repetitive tasks, firms can replace this with better learning opportunities. Young solicitors could spend more time attending client meetings, observing negotiations, attending court and developing drafting and strategic skills, for example.

The partners need to adapt too There is an interesting generational irony here. The partners of today are the lawyers who may remember the introduction of email and the rapid emergence of the internet. Young solicitors remember the advent of ChatGPT. For many young solicitors, AI has arrived much earlier in our educational and professional lives than comparable technological changes did for previous generations. Firms therefore need to consider how they can combine the technological familiarity of young solicitors with the professional judgement and experience of their mentors.

Young professionals are accustomed to technology making work more efficient. A firm that is reluctant to embrace technological change may experience difficulty in attracting young dynamic professionals.

Responsible adoption is essential The benefits of AI of course do not remove its risks. Anyone who has used generative AI will know that a confident answer is not necessarily a correct one. AI can produce convincing but inaccurate information. In our profession, accuracy and professional responsibility are fundamental and this cannot be ignored. Confidentiality, privilege, data protection and professional judgement cannot simply be delegated to a machine. AI should be treated as an assistant, and the solicitor remains responsible for the work produced and advice given. This is particularly important for young solicitors because we are still developing professional judgement. If technology provides an answer before we have learned how to independently arrive at an answer and therefore assess if the generated answer is correct, we risk outsourcing the very skill we are supposed to be developing and providing inaccuracies. Young solicitors therefore need proper training in both the capabilities and limitations of AI. Firms need clear AI and data protection policies and, importantly, an environment in which questions can be asked openly.

Survival of the fittest The legal profession has survived enormous technological changes throughout the years. Email did not eliminate solicitors, nor did online legal research or digital communication. Similarly, AI will not eliminate solicitors, but, as discussed, it will change client expectations, how firms operate and what it means to provide value. It is not the firm which invests the most in technology that will prosper the most but the one who understands it use, limitations and potential. Such benefits include improving client service, staff development and making legal work more efficient without compromising professional standards. We should not blindly embrace every new technology, nor should we reject it simply because it challenges established ways of working and thinking. We should understand it, question it and learn to use it responsibly. The young solicitors entering firms today will eventually become associates, partners and the people responsible for running those firms. The rise of AI is an early opportunity for the young solicitor to shape our profession. For Northern Ireland’s legal profession, the answer cannot be to stand still. Survival of the fittest does not mean being the biggest or the most technologically advanced. It means being willing to adapt. In many respects, the question is not whether young solicitors are ready for AI, but rather, is the profession?

‘ Technology must not remove the opportunity to learn.’

The Writ Autumn 2026

Meet the Trainees Laura Gooding Second Year Trainee Cleaver Fulton Rankin Can you tell us a little about your training journey and your experience at Cleaver Fulton Rankin so far? I graduated from the University of East Anglia in 2021 with an LLB and began my legal career with Cleaver Fulton Rankin shortly afterwards, joining as a Paralegal in November 2021. Working as a Paralegal helped me develop the key skills required of a successful solicitor while building a strong, client-focused approach. Transitioning to the role of Trainee Solicitor in September 2024 was a welcome next step in my career. During my time with the firm, I have gained experience across a variety of practice areas and discovered a particular interest in business and private immigration law. Most importantly, I have had the privilege of being supported by solicitors who are not only experts in their fields, but are also committed to fostering the collaborative and welcoming culture that makes Cleaver Fulton Rankin a leading commercial law firm in Northern Ireland. I am delighted to have begun my role as a Solicitor in the Employment & Immigration Department. Working in a commercial law firm, have you seen AI or other legal technology being used in practice? What has your experience of this been? I have gained first-hand experience of using legal technology and automation on largescale document review projects, where these tools have supported the efficient delivery of legal services. Cleaver Fulton Rankin has also invested significantly in this area through its AI Working Group, AI Policy and ongoing training programmes, helping to ensure that AI is used responsibly and effectively across the firm.

Are there any tasks in a busy commercial practice that you think AI can make more efficient or less time-consuming? AI can be particularly useful in supporting business development activities. It can help generate initial drafts of articles, presentations and marketing content, providing a useful starting-point for further refinement. It can also assist with routine communications by helping to tailor tone and structure for different audiences. However, any AI-generated output should always be reviewed carefully. AI should be treated as a support tool rather than a substitute for a lawyer’s expertise and oversight. What do you think are the biggest opportunities AI presents for trainee solicitors working in a commercial environment? AI literacy is becoming an increasingly valuable skill for trainee solicitors. Used appropriately, AI can help trainees navigate large volumes of information more quickly, allowing them to spend more time developing their legal analysis, commercial awareness and understanding of clients’ objectives. The real opportunity lies in learning how to use these tools effectively while continuing to develop the knowledge, analytical ability and commercial understanding on which good legal advice depends. As technology continues to evolve, what skills do you think will remain essential for lawyers, regardless of advances in AI? Building trusted relationships, exercising sound judgement and understanding a client’s commercial objectives will remain essential. Technology can support legal work, but clients ultimately value clear advice, practical solutions and the confidence that comes from dealing with a trusted adviser.

Do you think today’s trainees need to approach learning and professional development differently because of AI and new technologies? AI changes the tools available to trainees, but not the fundamentals of becoming a good lawyer. Trainees still need to develop legal knowledge, analytical skills and the ability to assess issues critically. Understanding how and when to use AI is simply becoming another part of that process. If AI could take one task completely off your desk tomorrow, what would it be and why? Truthfully, I would not want AI to take any task completely off my desk. Keeping an open mind about AI and recognising its potential to support legal work are important. However, the ability to research, review, draft and remain organised without relying entirely on digital tools involves skills that require dedication and continuous development throughout a legal career. In my view, demonstrating an ‘always learning’ mindset while remaining curious about new ways of working is essential for success.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Maeve Jackson-Ware First Year Trainee Fox Law Can you tell us about your training experience and what it's like working in a regional practice? My training has focused primarily on private family law and the Omagh Bombing Inquiry. I regularly deal with contact, parental responsibility, residence and prohibited steps applications. Working in a regional practice has given me the opportunity to develop my skills within a strong sense of community. Regular attendance at family courts has helped me build relationships with colleagues and learn from experienced practitioners. It is particularly rewarding to see the impact our work has on local people. As someone from Omagh, working on the Omagh Bombing Inquiry has been especially meaningful. How is AI currently being used in your firm, and what has your experience of it been? We use technology to improve efficiency while maintaining strict control over client data. The firm has developed its own case management system, reducing reliance on third-party providers and ensuring data remains secure.

Do you think AI has the potential to improve access to legal services for clients in local communities?

Looking ahead, how do you think AI will change the way trainee solicitors learn and develop their careers?

Yes. AI can help translate complex legal language into more accessible terms, making it easier for clients to understand advice and correspondence.

AI makes information more accessible and can help trainees develop an initial understanding of unfamiliar concepts. It can also improve drafting, structure and tone, saving time and increasing efficiency.

It can also help people gain an initial understanding of legal issues before consulting a solicitor, allowing them to make more informed decisions and identify key concerns at an early stage. What concerns, if any, do you have about the use of AI in the legal profession? AI is a valuable tool, but it must be used with caution. Information generated by AI should never be accepted at face value. AI can misunderstand legal principles, confuse jurisdictions or even produce inaccurate information. I see AI as a starting-point rather than an answer. Any output should be carefully checked and validated using professional judgement and independent research.

However, much of my learning has come from working alongside supervisors, counsel and colleagues. Practical experience, professional judgement and learning from others will remain central to a trainee's development. AI can support that learning, but it cannot replace it. If AI could take one task completely off your desk tomorrow, what would it be and why? Anything administrative. Tasks such as responding to legal aid queries, submitting bills and managing emails can take up a significant part of the day. Automating this work would allow lawyers to spend more time focusing on clients and progressing cases.

We also use tools such as Microsoft Copilot, which operates within our secure Microsoft environment. In addition, Fox Law is supporting the pilot rollout of Lawri, a Northern Ireland-developed conveyancing platform, by testing new features in a live legal environment. Importantly, all legal work remains subject to solicitor review and oversight. What tasks do you think AI can help with most effectively in a smaller practice? AI has significant potential to streamline administrative tasks that consume valuable time, such as filing emails, categorising documents and managing case information. It can also assist with producing first drafts of correspondence and documents, providing a strong starting-point that can then be reviewed and tailored by the solicitor.

The Writ Autumn 2026

Casenotes Members may access the full judgment in all of these cases from the Library catalogue, available from the Members' area of the Society's website.

Administration of Justice In the matter of an application by Martin Fegan for judicial review Application for judicial review of a decision by a custody officer of the PSNI not to appoint a date for the surrender into custody in answer to police bail on a date earlier than appointed. - statutory interpretation. - Re Higgins [2025] NICA 19. - applicant had been arrested in connection with a series of cross-border fraud offences targeting the agri-business sector. - bail granted on condition of no contact with two named suspects. - applicant's solicitor had requested that a proposed interview be brought forward to a new date as the original date was causing them difficulties. - applicant had a pre-booked holiday. - following the Higgins case, officer was unable to extend or change the date or time. solicitor believed that the power of extension was available and nothing in Higgins prohibited an earlier surrender to custody. - whether prebooked holiday was an ‘unavoidable cause’. - whether failure to surrender at agreed date and time was a breach of bail and liable to arrest. - duties of custody officer. - ‘answer to bail’ and ‘surrender into custody’ interpretation. - HELD THAT the respondent was entitled to refuse the request to extend the time for surrender. - whilst missing a holiday was inconvenient it did not mean he was unable to attend on appointed date. - application dismissed.

King’s Bench Division 26 May 2026 McLaughlin, J

R v Sean Rodgers Appeal against conviction of murder. - victim, Edward Meenan was murdered in November 2018. - applicant and two co-accused were jointly charged on indictment with murder, perverting the course of justice by destruction of evidence and with s.18 wounding with intent in respect of William McConnell who was assaulted. - whether applicant was convicted following an unfair trial. - whether trial judge failed to properly direct the jury on issue of selfdefence. - whether jury was misdirected or not adequately directed on the statutory defence of loss of control. - applicant on medications when the murder took place. - whether they may have affected his cognitive ability and ability to make informed choices. - withdrawal of legal representatives during trial. - lack of legal knowledge or ability to represent himself. vulnerable defendant. - HELD THAT conviction is unsafe. - appeal is allowed and conviction is quashed. - retrial ordered.

Court of Appeal 8 May 2026 Keegan, LCJ 74

In the matter of an application by John Walsh for judicial review Application for judicial review of a decision of the Victims' Payment Board Appeal Panel. Panel upheld the earlier decision of the Board to refuse the applicant's application for a victims' payment on the ground that the injury was not caused by a ‘Troubles-related incident’. - whether Panel had erred in concluding that the applicant's injuries were not caused by a Troubles-related incident. - whether Panel erred by rejecting the application for reasons other than those authorised by the statutory scheme. - consideration of the Victims' Payments Regulations 2020 and Victims' Payments Board guidance notes. - applicant had been arrested in June 1991 on suspicion of possession of an explosive substance, a coffee jar bomb, with intent. - he was convicted and sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment. served seven years in custody and released in 1998. - applicant's conviction was quashed in March 2010. - applicant applied for and was refused compensation for miscarriage of justice. - whether arrest and detention constituted a ‘Troubles-related incident’. - police and forensic science records. - appeal panel determination. - interpretation of ‘act of violence or force’. - HELD THAT application for judicial review is dismissed.

King’s Bench Division 19 May 2026 McLaughlin, J

Civil litigation Jacqueline Caren v Department for Infrastructure

Peter McGorrey v James McGorrey Partition of lands. - lands owned by father of appellant and respondent and transferred to them in 2019. - relationship has broken down and partition sought by respondent. - Master had divided the land but appellant appealed that order. - appeal lodged out of time. - leave sought to bring his appeal out of time and defend the partition proceedings. - discretion to extend time. - Master had made the order in February 2025 and appeal lodged in May 2025. - consideration of Davis v Northern Ireland Carriers [1979] NI 19. - appellant had history of mental health problems and a heart attack in November 2024 which had caused delay. - no medical evidence provided. - whether health interfered with his ability to deal with court. - whether he had a letter from Law Society of Northern Ireland indicating that the court could not make an order unless he was present and had participated. - failure to engage with proceedings. - whether the two portions of land were of the same quality. -report from surveyor. - value of lands. - HELD THAT time cannot be extended and the application is dismissed.

Chancery Division 14 May 2026 Kinney, J

In the matter of an application by Conal Morgan (a minor) by his grandfather and next friend Patrick Ryan to apply for judicial review v Department of Infrastructure, Motor Insurers' Bureau and Secretary of State for Transport

Plaintiff, now 70 years old tripped and fell close to her home in July 2020. - defendant accepts that the plaintiff fell and does not allege any contributory fault against her. - damages of £55,000 have been agreed.- whether part of road where she fell is dangerous. - whether defendant has defence by reason of Roads NI Order 1993 a.8. - plaintiff tripped on bitmac on roadway which was slightly raised around a grating near the kerb. - sustained injuries to face, mouth, chin, wrist and knee. - neighbour who went to help also fell. whether bitmac had not been laid to proper standard. - whether bitmac laid flat. - whether hazardous and dangerous. - measurement of road. - HELD THAT the spot where the plaintiff fell is not dangerous based on expert opinion and possibility of injury was remote in this area of the road. - whilst there was a repairing obligation after adoption of road it is only maintenance and does not extend to improving or perfecting it.

Appeal against decision of Rooney, J in October 2025 in which he dismissed the applicant's challenge to the Untraced Drivers Agreement 2004. - whether the 2004 agreement complied with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness under EU law. - appellant sustained soft tissue injuries when an unidentified vehicle driven by an untraced driver collided with the appellant's pram as it was being pushed on the public highway by his mother. - MIB offered £1500 by way of compensation. - appellant's solicitor proposed that the case be brought before the court by way of minor's petition. - judicial approval of offer. - MIB failed or refused to allow the offer to be brought before the court. - further offer of £2500 plus interest offered by MIB to held by suitable adult. - Order 53 statement. - whether 2004 agreement fails to protect minors. - comparator. - HELD THAT the court affirms the decision of the lower court and dismisses the appeal. - recommendations made to MIB as to the way forward.

King’s Bench Division 19 June 2026 O’Hara, J

Court of Appeal 17 June 2026 McAlinden, J

The Writ Autumn 2026

Company & Business law

Consumer law

R v Stephen McCourt

HNW Lending Limited v The Registrar of Companies for Northern Ireland, Larne Farms Limited (in liquidation), Thomas Keenan as liquidator of Larne Farms limited (in liquidation)

Geoffrey McMahon v Morphy Richards

Sentencing remarks. - defendant indicted for the murder of Mr Damien Heagney (deceased) and on arraignment pleaded not guilty. - life imprisonment. - length of minimum term to serve in prison. - victim impact. - deceased had an unsettled life and suffered mental health issues with only sporadic contact with friends and family. - dismembered partial remains of deceased found in reservoir in two packages. intention by defendant to conceal the murder, destroy evidence and avoid detection. - stab wounds inflicted on deceased. - evidence to support that defendant had been to the deceased's flat and had taken steps to remove his car as well as dispose of deceased's phone. - defendant had also been to the reservoir where body remains were found. - defendant failed to give evidence in court when called upon to do so. - death was as a result of a vicious attack. - aggravating factors. dismemberment of body. - disposal of body. - defendant's previous criminal record and record for violence. - HELD THAT the tariff is 24 years.

Application to extend time to register a charge. - prescribed 21 days for registration has elapsed. - delay in application to extend time. - interim period, chargor company was wound up and entered liquidation. - unregistered charge is void. - charge deed had been executed to secure a loan of £500K. - two applications for registration were required. first application was rejected and resubmitted. - applicant's solicitors heard nothing further from Companies House and assumed second application had been unaffected. - second application had been rejected. -applicant and his solicitors contend that they knew nothing of the rejection. - HELD THAT requirements of s.859F have not been met. - omission by applicant cannot be characterised as accidental. - no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated which would justify intervention after liquidation. - application is refused.

Claim for damages arising out of a fire at the home of plaintiff and his family. - fire ignited in a toaster located on a kitchen counter. - toaster manufactured by defendant. damages for negligence in the manufacture of toaster. - defect in toaster. - toaster used on a regular basis and cleaned every week. - toaster had been left plugged in and unattended as family assisted with a neighbouring emergency as cattle had escaped from a field onto the public road. - on their return, smoke was seen in the kitchen. - physical damage caused to the kitchen and smoke damage caused to other parts of the house. - repairs to house took three months. - family unable to use house during the time repairs were carried out. - cost of repairs met by plaintiff’s home insurer. - latter seeking to recover costs from defendant by way of subrogated claim. - expert evidence. - whether a mechanical or electrical fault or combination of both. whether obstruction of carriage within the toaster. - HELD THAT action is dismissed as the court cannot be satisfied that the fire was caused by a defect in the toaster.

Chancery Division 11 June 2026 Master Kelly

King’s Bench Division 20 March 2026 McLaughlin, J

Crown Court 28 May 2025 Fowler, J

R v EW In the matter of an application by James Malcomson for leave to apply for judicial review Application for leave to apply for a judicial review of a decision of the Financial Services Ombudsman of October 2025. - complaint by applicant to Ombudsman concerning a decision of Dromara and Drumgooland Credit Union on foot of an application for a home improvement loan. - two applications for a loan were refused. - Ombudsman found that the decision to decline the loans were fair but a fresh loan application would be assessed and the credit search for two earlier applications would be removed from the file. - further loan for home improvements applied for by applicant. - applicant provided five quotations in relation to the home improvement work. - two quotes were for a different property which applicant owned with father. - whether guarantor for loan required. - applicant also required to provide a 10% share of a reduced loan sum of £33,000. - whether rejection of loan application was unfair and whether Credit Union had followed their procedures. - whether procedural unfairness, apparent bias, error of material fact, error of law and failure to consider relevant evidence.- whether reasonable prospect of success. - HELD THAT leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed as there is no reasonable prospect of success.

King’s Bench Division 29 April 2026 McLaughlin, J

Criminal Law R v Kevin Jones Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of domestic abuse aggravated by reason of involving a relevant child and one of harassment. - defendant and complainant were husband and wife with two children. - two charges related to behaviour over an eight year period. - defendant abusive and had regular verbal outbursts, some of which were recorded by complainant. - strong language used to describe his wife. - some incidents occurred in the presence of the children. - defendant currently lives with parents. - qualified and worked as a teacher for 15 years. - defendant resented his wife as she encouraged him to remain a teacher when his preference was to work as a private music teacher. - whether he failed to acknowledge the distress he caused his wife and the impact on her and the children. - psychiatric evidence. - mental health issues. - anger management. - domestic abuse. - defence submissions. - defendant's parents have both serious medical issues and require assistance from him. -plea of guilty. - victim impact statement of wife. - consideration of R v WD [2025] NICA. - aggravating and mitigating factors. - controlling behaviour over eight years. - isolation from family and friends. - destruction of property. - HELD THAT defendant is sentenced to three years imprisonment, half in custody and half on licence.

Crown Court 1 July 2026 Lynch, HHJ

Appellant appeals the leave of McAlinden, J, against the sentence imposed on him by Her Honour Judge McColgan. - unlawfully and maliciously causing grievous bodily harm to Scott McFetters with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. - attempting to cause grievous bodily harm to John Kane with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. - appellant sentenced to a determinate custodial sentence (DCS). - appellant was aged 14 years at the date of the offences and 16 years old at date of sentence. - arraignment in Crown Court. - victim statements. - serious attack on innocent people. - repeated kicks and stamps to the head. - serious injuries. - long term physical and mental effects . pre-sentence report. - absence of previous convictions. - low likelihood of reoffending. - remorseful. - diagnosis of ADHD. - positive effects of medication. - referral to a youth conference coordinator. - youth conference report. - HELD THAT the appeal is allowed in part and a sentence of two years is imposed comprising 12 months detention on both counts concurrently.

Court of Appeal 26 May 2026 Smyth, J

The Writ Autumn 2026

Education

Family & Children

JR335 (a minor) acting by JR335 (1) father and next friend and JR336 (1) (a minor) his mother and next friend v the Minister and the Department of Education and the Education Authority

DB v WH and A Health and Social Care Trust v WH and DB

Appellants appealed decision of McAlinden, J to refuse them leave to apply for judicial review of the proposed respondents' decisions not to approve two proposals to transform the schools at which they attend to integrated status. - Rathmore Primary School. - Bangor Academy and Sixth Form College. - consideration of policy documents and guidance. - process for transformation for existing schools to integrated status. - parental ballot. - developmental proposal. - stakeholder views. - whether demand for integrated education. - religious balance. - whether failure to give adequate reasons for decision. - HELD THAT the court agrees with the earlier decision and appeals are dismissed.

Court of Appeal 9 June 2026 Colton, LJ

Employment In the matter of an application by LT and PM for judicial review Former police officers challenge the determination of the implementation dates applicable to their respective injury on duty awards. - cohort of nine comparable cases. Northern Ireland Policing Board administrator and decision-maker. - Order 53 statement. - order of mandamus to determine date of pensions. - police officers are not employees but holders of statutory office. - provision for compulsory retirement of officers on grounds of ill-health and entitlement to compensation where officers sustain injury on duty. definition of disablement and permanent disablement. - referral of medical questions to a Selected Medical Practitioner. - LT retired in September 2006 and made a retrospective application for an injury on duty award for PTSD in 2021. - date of permanence decided as 2021. - PM retired in 2006 and made a retrospective application for PTSD in 2019 with a date of permanence of 2019. - consideration of R(on the application of the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire) v The Crown Court at Sheffield and Kelly [2022] ICR 623. - whether applicants permanently disabled. - HELD THAT applicants cannot be regarded as having been disabled at the point of retirement as still capable of continuing their ordinary duties as a police officer as retirement arose from an election to avail of the applicable severance scheme rather than due to disablement. - leave is refused and application is dismissed.

King’s Bench Division 3 June 2026 Fowler, J

Contact arrangements for child, MH, between mother, WH and father, DB. - latter were in a brief relationship between December 2019 and April 2020 and MH was born some months later. - Scott Schedule. - allegations of domestic abuse by mother. - allegations that father was verbally abusive, had assaulted mother, exerted coercively controlling behaviours over the mother. - no complaint of assault was made to the police. - DB instructed solicitors to seek an agreement for defined contact. - WH denied receiving correspondence but sent a cease-and-desist letter. - WH had used a ‘former lawyer’ who she was introduced to via Zoom and who drew up documents free of charge. correspondence from DB's solicitors was returned to sender. - evidence of maternal grandmother. - credibility of evidence. - HELD THAT there was no evidence to sustain the allegations by WH about DB regarding coercive control or physical assault. -however, DB did have a propensity for foul language and name calling when angry or frustrated.

Family Division 15 April 2026 Humphreys, J

A Health and Social Care Trust v KJ and DC Care proceedings; - non-accidental injury. - expert evidence. - applicant Trust seeks a care order. - alleged that FC suffered significant harm whilst in the care of her parents. - following a hospital visit where FC had a significant bump on the side of her head, parents were arrested and FC discharged into the care of her maternal grandmother. - whether FC suffered a fracture to her skull. - burden of proof tests. - hot-tubbing. - concurrent evidence. - medical literature. HELD THAT it is more probable than not that FC suffered a fracture to the skull.

Family Division 12 June 2026 Humphreys, J

KJ and WR v NS (adoption; unreasonable withholding of consent) Application brought by birth mother, WR and stepfather, KJ for an adoption order in respect of child, TR. - opposed by birth father, NS. - whether adoption is in the best interests of TR. - whether NS withholding his consent unreasonably. - TR is now aged 14. - parents were never married and separated when she was 10 months old. - applicant mother and stepfather, KJ are primary carers and stepfather in her life since early childhood. - KJ has day to day parental role.

- NS has had no contact with child in three years. - negative experience with contact visits. - welfare analysis. - TR wants the adoption to progress and has done so for a considerable time. - NS wants TR to be part of his family unit. - HELD THAT adoption is in the best interests of TR and father's consent is being unreasonably withheld. - adoption order made and TR to be known by her stepfather's surname in accordance with her wishes and feelings. - adoption order terminates parental responsibility but does not extinguish future contact.

Family Division 8 June 2026 Humpheys, J

Candice Marilyn Winter v Colin Brett Winter Ruling on application for committal for contempt of court. - divorce proceedings. - application for ancillary relief concluded with a consent order. - petitioner alleges that respondent has been guilty of contempt of court in failing to comply with the order. - seeks to have him committed to prison. - failure by respondent to make agreed payments, withdrawal of sums from joint account and failure to remove direct debits from joint account causing payments in excess of £11,000 to be made. - respondent was committed to two months' imprisonment but released on bail pending appeal. - variation application. - respondent failed to adhere to court terms and sentenced to five months in prison. - failure to pay periodic payments totalling £149,625. - arrears in mortgage payments. - utility bills unpaid. - refusal to pay school fees. - respondent had the finances to comply with his legal obligations. - respondent was suspended from his job for a period of 12 months from April 2026 as his fitness to practice as a doctor was impaired. - deliberate decision to deceive and reckless disregard for patient safety. - HELD THAT respondent is sentenced to nine months imprisonment.

Family Division 11 May 2026 Humphreys, J

Health and Social Care In the matter of an application by JR349 (community resettlement of a patient) for leave to apply for judicial review Application for leave to apply for judicial review and for interim relief in linked decisions. - community resettlement of patients at Muckamore Abbey Hospital (MAH). - applicant learned of plans to forcibly remove him from MAH and move him to Knockbracken Hospital. - applicant seeks interim relief compelling the Trust to maintain his accommodation at MAH until a permanent community placement is agreed.

The Writ Autumn 2026

- patient is last remaining patient at MAH and has resided there since the mid 1980's. - applicant was convicted of manslaughter of child in mid 1980's. - subject of a Hospital Order with an indefinite Restriction Order and committed to be detained at MAH. - had been entitled to be discharged as long as he resided in a place agreed by the Responsible Medical Officer. - agreed place was MAH. alternative residences have been considered, but none were suitable. - resettlement into the community was not viable. - applicant suffers from a severe mental impairment of intelligence and an enduring developmental disorder. - likelihood of serious physical harm is substantial. - option of recall to hospital as MAH no longer functions as a hospital and cannot deliver the care and treatment applicant requires. - whether forceable removal from MAH is a breach of article 5 ECHR. irrationality and procedural unfairness. - HELD THAT leave to apply for judicial review and for interim relief are refused. - Trust to decide whether to provide some extra time for the applicant to adjust and prepare for relocation.

King’s Bench Division 16 June 2026 McLaughlin, J

Immigration & Asylum In the matter of an appeal against the dismissal of an application for judicial review in the case of JR256 Appellant, an asylum seeker challenges the decision of Colton J to dismiss the application for judicial review. - evidence supporting the judge's conclusion was contained in a ‘Merton’ compliant age assessment which found him to be an adult, seven years older than claimed. - JR256 moved from Manchester to Belfast where he was placed in foster care. - foster carer queried his age due to his confident and mature attitude. - age assessment carried out. - Trust gave appellant the benefit of the doubt in accepting his age. - Trust had not considered the earlier Merton criteria carried out in Manchester. - consideration of judge's reasoning process. - HELD THAT all grounds of challenge are dismissed.

Court of Appeal 12 May 2026 Treacy, LJ

In the matter of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 and in the matter of AG V JW Appeal brought under the Hague Convention. - child abduction and custody. - appeal against return order by defendant father JW. - plaintiff is mother of two children, MW and SW. - mother sought return from Northern Ireland to Republic of Ireland. - return of SW has now been effected. - case relates to MW. - defendant is the father who wrongly retained

the children in Northern Ireland after a midterm break. - father appeals return order on the basis that of new evidence that there is a risk of psychological harm if MW returned. - letter from teacher, evidence of GP and referral to CAMHS - mother has made an application under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 which applies in Republic of Ireland. - judge had serious concerns about the behaviour of the father and his ability to influence MW. - whether new evidence changes this view. whether mental health issue of MW emerged since the move to Northern Ireland in February 2026. - HELD THAT appeal is dismissed and the return order is affirmed. - place and date of handover agreed with both parties. - handover facilitated by social services due to an incident involving the father and his current partner in Northern Ireland.

Court of Appeal 22 May 2026 Keegan, LCJ

Private Client In the matter of BD (incapacitous adult; inherent jurisdiction; recognition) Application by BD, a woman in her 90's with two sons, who reside in Northern Ireland and Scotland . - BD lived with her husband in Scotland before he died and she then moved to Northern Ireland to reside with her son, CD with the benefit of a care package. - BD is an individual of considerable means - trust fund. - combined power of attorney (CPA) executed in Scotland. - BD applies for an order discharging, varying or suspending the Scottish guardianship order and a declaration that she can revoke any enduring power of attorney and grant a new one. - declaration that Northern Ireland courts have jurisdiction in respect of BD's affairs and in the event of her incapacity, an order appointing CD as controller. - currently DD and his wife FD are attorneys under the CPA. - BD was suffering from dementia when she lived in Scotland which had been verified by a Consultant Psychiatrist in 2025. - Geriatrician in Northern Ireland believed her to have mild Alzheimer’s disease and had capacity to nominate CD as her attorney. - NI enduring power of attorney executed in April 2026. - whether Scottish CPA still valid. - no statutory recognition scheme in force. - court cannot discharge or suspend the operation of the Scottish CPA. - HELD THAT BD must pursue the Scottish statutory route to revoke the CPA. - pending the application to revoke, the Scottish power is recognised in this jurisdiction insofar as it relates to property and affairs. - application dismissed.

Property Alistair Hay and Kim Mary Hay v Matthew Mullan Possession of land. - plaintiffs seek possession of an area of land currently used by the defendant as part of his garden. - RCJ Order 113. - possessory title. - plaintiffs bought the property and land in June 2024. tenancy agreement with previous owner to January 2000 for the land in place with the defendant's mother, Ms Geraldine Mullan. tenancy not to be assigned, sub-let or part with possession. - Ms Mullan no longer in occupation. - tenancy agreement allowed to roll on annually. - adjoining property owned by defendant. - property bought from mother. -defendant unaware of a tenancy agreement. - defendant had carried out substantial works on the property and adjoining lands. whether title established. - whether previous owner of land and property had discussed the land with the defendant before the sale. - whether defendant offered first refusal. whether reasonable endeavours to pursue vacant possession of the subject property by previous owner. - tenancy agreement had been terminated when house was listed for sale. - HELD THAT plaintiffs are the owners of the land and an order for possession is granted.- defendant has 12 weeks to vacate the property. - plaintiffs entitled to recover costs from defendant.

Chancery Division 27 May 2026 Scoffield, J

Family Division 18 May 2026 Humphreys, J

Law Society of Northern Ireland 96 Victoria Street, Belfast, Antrim, BT1 3GN info@lawsoc-ni.org 028 9023 1614 lawsoc-ni.org