- News & Comment
-
Online Shop
Online Services
Looseleafs
Law Reports
Books and eBooks
-
CPD & Events
Webinars
- Authors
- About Family Law
- Contact
The Law Society has called for stronger oversight of agentic artificial intelligence (AI) in the justice system, warning that the technology is developing faster than the regulatory frameworks needed to govern its use.
A foresight study, The Future of Agentic AI in the Justice System, examines the potential impact of autonomous AI systems that can take action on behalf of users, rather than simply generate content. The Law Society warned that such systems could be introduced into the justice system before clear boundaries have been established between automated processes and human judgement.
The report comes amid significant pressure on the courts, with some hearings listed as far ahead as 2030. The legal sector has also seen increasing use of AI tools by people seeking to navigate legal proceedings, raising concerns that inaccurate or misleading AI-generated information could create additional work for the courts.
The Law Society acknowledged that agentic AI could help reduce administrative burdens, ease delays and improve access to justice. However, it warned that, without appropriate safeguards, errors could spread rapidly, accountability could become fragmented and unequal access to advanced AI tools could widen existing inequalities.
One of the study’s key findings was that agentic AI would not resolve fundamental problems within the justice system and could instead reinforce existing weaknesses, including underfunding, poor-quality data and paper-based processes.
The report also identified a growing divide between legal professionals and organisations with the resources to use AI effectively and those without access to comparable tools, describing this as a potential “justice gap”.
The study warned that agentic AI could accelerate the reclassification of certain judicial functions as administrative processes, potentially making those changes harder to challenge. However, it also recognised that carefully deployed technology could allow judges and legal practitioners to concentrate on work requiring human judgement.
The Law Society said existing regulatory frameworks were poorly suited to the challenges posed by agentic AI and called for clear accountability for its use in the justice system, greater transparency in AI decision-making, meaningful human oversight and public debate before the technology becomes widely adopted.
Law Society vice president Brett Dixon said the justice system must not sacrifice fairness, accountability and public trust in pursuit of unmonitored efficiency.
He said AI could help alleviate some administrative pressures but should not be treated as a substitute for investment in court buildings and additional court staff.
Dixon also stressed that legal judgement could not be delegated to AI, arguing that professional expertise remained essential to scrutinising, questioning, refining and approving AI outputs.
He said the central question was not simply what AI could do, but which functions should remain the responsibility of humans, adding that there was still time to establish appropriate boundaries before they were determined by the market.
To read the study in full, click here.
