AI is now widely used in legal practice, but a survey for Clio finds that clients are not being told when it is used. The issue is not the adoption of AI itself, but the gap between internal use and client-facing transparency. That gap raises practical and professional questions about communication, trust, and informed client engagement. It also places firms under pressure to decide when AI use should be disclosed and how that disclosure should be managed.
The legal significance of the finding lies in the relationship between technology use and professional responsibility. Where AI supports legal work, the client may still expect to know how the work is being produced, particularly if the technology influences drafting, review, analysis, or other parts of the service. Even where AI is used as an internal efficiency tool, the absence of disclosure may create a mismatch between what the firm does and what the client believes is being done. That mismatch can affect confidence in the service and the client’s understanding of how instructions are being handled.
The survey suggests that AI has moved from experimental use into mainstream legal practice. That makes transparency more important, not less, because routine use increases the number of matters in which AI may be involved. If clients are not told, firms may face questions over whether their communications are complete and whether the client has a proper picture of the process used to deliver the work. The practical issue is not limited to a single task or department; it concerns how firms explain the role of AI in ordinary legal service delivery.
For legal practices, the immediate implication is the need for clear internal decisions on disclosure. If AI is being used in client work, firms should know whether that use is something clients are told about as a matter of course, only in specific circumstances, or not at all. Without a consistent position, there is a risk of uneven client communication across matters or teams. That inconsistency can be particularly problematic where the client later asks how the work was prepared, reviewed, or checked.
The findings also point to a wider regulatory and reputational issue. Legal services depend on accuracy, accountability, and trust, and AI use can affect all three if it is not openly managed. A client who discovers after the fact that AI was used may question whether the service was described fully at the outset. Even where no mistake has occurred, the lack of disclosure may still be viewed as poor practice because it leaves the client without a complete understanding of the method used to deliver the advice or document.
The article does not indicate any specific UK rule requiring disclosure in every case, and it should not be assumed that AI use is automatically improper. The point raised by the survey is narrower and more practical: mainstream use of AI without client disclosure may not align with the level of openness clients increasingly expect from their legal advisers. Firms that use AI therefore need a defined approach to transparency, so that client communication matches actual working practice and avoids avoidable doubt.
As AI becomes embedded in legal work, the risk is not only operational but communicational, and firms that fail to tell clients when AI is used may weaken trust in the service they provide.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Specific advice should be sought for your particular circumstances.
Source: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk