Log in to mySRA Contact us
  2. About us
  3. Consultation and discussion
  4. Our consultation responses
  5. Response to Department for Science, Innovation and Technology – AI Growth Lab: Call for Evidence

SRA response

Response to Department for Science, Innovation and Technology – AI Growth Lab: Call for Evidence

Published on 27 March 2026

Our response

  1. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is the largest regulator of legal services in England and Wales, regulating solicitors and law firms. Our purpose is to drive confidence and trust in legal We work to protect members of the public, support the rule of law and the administration of justice. We focus on the issues that can transform legal services, making sure the profession delivers the high standard of service that the public expects and deserve.
  2. The SRA recognises the UK's growth challenge set out in the Department for Science, Industry and Technology's (DSIT) call for evidence and the opportunities within the legal sector, including as highlighted in the Ministry of Justice's November 2025 report 'The benefits of an open and competitive legaeconomy'. The legal services sector is a major contributor to the UK economy and has seen significant growth in recent years, contributing £37bn – or 6 per cent - of gross value added in 2023 and a trade surplus of £7.6bn.
  3. As a regulator, the SRA is committed to supporting opportunities for growth. While we are not an economic regulator and are not covered by the growth duty, we support growth in three primary ways: promoting trust and confidence in the sector; enabling innovation and competition in legal services, including supporting the safe adoption of AI; and making sure our regulatory regime is clear, fit-for-purpose and minimises unnecessary burden.
  4. We welcome DSIT's proposal for an AI Growth Lab and recognise the potential to support and significantly boost responsible innovation and growth in the legal sector. The proposal aligns both with the SRA's existing innovation programme and our regulatory objectives which include promoting competition, improving access to justice, and increasing the accessibility of legal services1. The proposal provides an opportunity to explore challenges to the adoption of AI within the legal sector and work collaboratively with government and the profession to identify proportionate and effective ways of addressing them. We are keen to work with DSIT on its proposals to bring our regulatory expertise and sector insight to help ensure any AI Growth Lab delivers the intended benefits.

SRA Innovate and regulatory sandbox research

  1. One of the key ways in which the SRA supports growth is through our innovation programme. SRA Innovate provides support to firms and innovators with regulatory queries and novel proposals, including in relation to AI. We also offer 'Innovation Space' waivers which allow firms to test new ideas safely, maintaining protection for the 2 In April 2025 we granted a two-year waiver to allow solicitors employed by Valla Limited to carry out AI-assisted claims management activities. SRA Innovate also worked with Garfield.Law Limited, the first AI-driven legal firm, authorised by the SRA in May 20253.
  2. We know that there is more that we can do to support innovation within our regulated community. We have commissioned independent research to understand how the SRA can most effectively support technology adoption and innovation across firms of all sizes. A key part of this work is exploring the potential need for, and value of, creating a safe testing or 'sandbox' We also ran an 'Innovate' trial to develop our experience of piloting a new technology with an innovator and deepen our knowledge of what a particular application of AI technology could offer to both the regulated community and consumers4.
  3. Our experience and evidence suggest that there is a range of challenges to AI adoption in the legal sector. These include specific concerns about maintaining client confidentiality and legal professional privilege, as well as broader issues such as professional indemnity insurance, liability and A sandbox-style initiative could explore the interaction between regulatory and wider factors in a supported environment. Such an approach could generate practical evidence that provides clarity, builds confidence among innovators and legal services providers, and sends a positive signal to the market about the safe and responsible adoption of new technologies.
  4. We see significant potential in boosting our Innovate programme and would welcome the opportunity to work with government to improve our resources, expertise and capacity to strengthen and grow our work in this area.

Regulator or government-led approach

  1. The call for evidence seeks views on whether a regulator-led, or government-led cross-sector lab would be preferable, indicating that, in highly regulated industries, regulator-led AI growth labs may be preferable. We welcome discussions and engagement to date on this area between regulators, DSIT, Department for Business and Trade (DBT), Ministry of Justice and other
  2. We would welcome further discussion on whether a government-led or regulator-led model would be most effective for the legal services sector. In a government-led approach, a sandbox and any risks associated with legislative change would necessarily be managed by government, with advice and support from regulators. Under a government-led model, we would advocate working very closely with the relevant regulators to ensure that any approach functions effectively within respective regulatory frameworks and stand ready to support and contribute our insight and expertise. A regulator-led approach could be more effective where innovation challenges are more closely related to the operation of regulatory frameworks rather than statutory provisions, and/or where challenges are profession-specific. Under either model, regulators could leverage existing relationships with key stakeholders, such as insurers, to help shape solutions to specific challenges.
  3. As the largest legal services regulator, overseeing around 90% of the regulated market5, the SRA may be well placed to work with government in piloting a sandbox initiative. Our developmental and trialling work on regulatory sandboxing aligns with the ambitions set out in the call for evidence. In relation to any sandbox, we would wish to work closely with our oversight regulator, the Legal Services Board (LSB), and share learning with other regulators across the legal services sector.
  4. We agree that any sandbox should operate within clear boundaries or 'red lines', to safeguard consumers and maintain public trust. Our principles-based regulatory framework and waiver system already provides flexibility to our regulated community while ensuring that consumers are protected.
  5. We suggest that any sandbox for legal services could benefit from:
    1. being aligned with the regulatory framework of each legal profession, to reduce complexity and ensure clear accountability;
    2. being focused on clearly defined challenges, such as those arising in specific areas of law, regulations, or types of firms;
    3. applying regulatory flexibility in a proportionate and risk-based way;
    4. working within clear boundaries, or 'red lines', to protect the consumer interest;
    5. building and capturing evidence, enabling confidence, insight and shared learning across the market over time.

Conclusion

  1. We welcome continued engagement with DSIT on its AI Growth Lab proposals and the opportunity to contribute our regulatory experience and evidence to support responsible innovation and growth in legal We look forward to further dialogue on how these ambitions can best be achieved to benefit consumers, firms and the wider public interest.
Top