Agentic AI 'moving faster than regulation'
Research published by the Law Society of England and Wales has warned that AI is moving faster than the rules needed to govern it.
The organisation says that, as the justice system in its jurisdiction is under "immense pressure", more people are turning to AI tools to help navigate legal proceedings, while inaccurate or misleading AI information creates more work for courts.
The future of agentic AI in the justice system explores how agentic AI could reshape the justice system in England and Wales over the next decade.
Human judgement
The study includes interviews with around 30 experts from the legal, technology, academic, judicial, and regulatory sectors, as well as discussions with society members
It says that systems "capable of acting on our behalf" could enter the justice system before authorities have decided where AI stops and human judgement, responsibility, and accountability begin.
The society's report warns that, unlike generative AI, which creates content, agentic or autonomous AI can take action on behalf of users.
While the report says that agentic AI can create new opportunities, it also warns of "significant risks" across justice, public services, and the government.
It adds that, without robust safeguards, errors can spread quickly, accountability can be fragmented, and unclear or unequal access to advanced AI tools could widen inequalities.
Call for public debate
The society is calling for:
- Clear accountability for agentic AI in justice,
- Transparency of AI decision-making,
- Meaningful human oversight, and
- Public debate before widespread use.
Its vice-president Brett Dixon said that the justice system must not sacrifice fairness, accountability, and public trust in pursuit of "unmonitored efficiency".
“AI is not a silver bullet to improve the justice system. It could help to ease some administrative pressures, but it is not a replacement for much-needed investment in the court estate and additional court staff.
“Legal judgement cannot be delegated. Not in courts and not in the legal sector. Professional expertise that shapes, checks, questions, improves, and approves AI outputs is needed now more than ever," he stated.
Dixon said that the most important question was not about what AI could do, but what should remain human.
"There is still time to shape the boundaries of AI before the market does it for us,” he concluded.