Can a lawyer be negligent for not using AI?
Possibly, yes. The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce's Legal Statement on liability for AI harms says a professional can be negligent by using AI where it should not have been used, using inappropriate AI, using AI with insufficient care, or failing to use AI when it should have been used. Careless use creates liability, and so can failing to use AI where a competent professional would have. Either way, the human professional stays accountable, not the model provider.
Key takeaways
- In 2026, two Singapore lawyers were ordered to pay S$5,000 in personal costs for citing authorities that did not exist.
- The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, chaired by the Master of the Rolls, lists four ways a professional can be negligent in relation to AI.
- One of those four is failing to use AI when it should have been used.
- Accountability stays with the human professional, not the model provider.
- Not using AI is no longer automatically the conservative choice.
What happened in Singapore?
Earlier in 2026, two Singapore lawyers were ordered to pay S$5,000 in personal costs for citing two authorities that did not exist. Most of the profession read it as a warning: be careful with AI.
That is only one edge of the blade.
What does the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce say?
The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, chaired by the Master of the Rolls, published its Legal Statement on liability for AI harms. It says a professional can be negligent by:
- using AI where it should not have been used;
- using inappropriate AI;
- using AI with insufficient care; or
- failing to use AI when it should have been used.
Read the last line again. Failing to use AI.
Why does the duty of care now cut both ways?
Use AI carelessly, and you are liable. Fail to use it when a competent professional would have, and you may be liable too.
And the liability doesn't land on the model provider. It lands on the human. The tool changed. The accountability never left the professional.
What should lawyers do about it?
The skills that matter aren't prompt engineering. They are:
- Understanding how AI fails. It predicts. It doesn't know. Hallucination includes misreading what is there and missing what isn't.
- Building checks that catch your own blind spots. Grounding checks against sources, and adversarial cross-reviews.
- Applying the embarrassment test. Could you defend this output to a partner, out loud, right now?
This was never only a junior lawyer problem. It is the whole profession's.
Not using AI has always felt like the conservative choice. It isn't a neutral one any more.
Frequently asked questions
What is the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce Legal Statement on AI liability?
A statement by the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, chaired by the Master of the Rolls, on how English law is likely to treat liability for harm caused by AI, including professional negligence.
Who is liable when AI produces a wrong answer in legal work?
The professional who relied on it. Model providers generally disclaim liability in their terms, and courts have ordered lawyers personally to pay costs for AI-fabricated citations.
How can lawyers use AI safely?
Understand how the tool fails, check its output against sources, run adversarial reviews, and apply the embarrassment test before relying on anything.
This article is general information, not legal advice. It reflects the position as at the date of publication. A plain-text version for AI assistants is at /blog/is-it-negligent-not-to-use-ai.md.