AI as precedent on steroids: a Managing Partner on laziness, training, and the new build pipeline

About Paul

I am the unquenchably driven Managing Partner of Dutton Gregory LLP. Qualified as a solicitor in 2003 and have been involved in management roles within law firms since qualifying. Proud to be one of the few Chartered Manager qualified Solicitors within England and Wales, as I take leadership seriously.

AI hallucinations

By late 2025, researchers had tracked over 120 court cases involving AI hallucinations. Tackling this is now a major competitive differentiator for legal AI platforms.

Paul, what is your take on this?

Laziness will always get punished and found out. Do the job properly or why bother doing it at all. Yes, people make mistakes (do you know how many cases of Jones v Jones have been reported?), so there will be drafting errors at times on case references. There always have been — but check first.

There is no excuse for people not doing their job properly. AI is great and people should use it, but check it. If you had a trainee or paralegal assisting on a matter and they had prepared a bundle for Court, the Judge would expect you to check that they had not created a case from nothing. The same applies to AI. Check it. It does not take long.

Have you seen legal professionals rely on AI in their work?

Yes — and I use it myself, not that I handle much legal work directly in my role. For some lawyers to throw their arms in the air and try to claim AI is "evil" is frankly nonsense. Evil is a deliberate choice to cause harm, suffering or destruction. AI has inbuilt protections against this, and of course AI does not have a soul.

AI is, to my mind, precedents on "steroids". Show me a lawyer who hates AI who then claims never to use a precedent and I will show you a liar. The system of precedent we have in this country is conducive to using AI, as it allows precedent to be followed.

AI allows more mundane tasks to be carried out in the background so the really valuable work can be done by the lawyer — the client care and the ability to think about how to resolve the issue before them. I fail to see how this is not a good thing.

We do need to balance the need to train lawyers, though. I am not saying I have the answer to this, but if AI is handling the mundane work that was always the domain of the paralegal or trainee, then how will they develop the skill set to handle more detailed work? Having said this, the city firms have taken a perverse pride in holding back client contact from junior lawyers until they have made Partner — so I think that firms like mine, that allow lots of client contact to junior lawyers, will start to reap the benefits of being early "power users" of AI.

AI in conveyancing

AI tools are increasingly being used to speed up title checks, draft contracts and flag risk in conveyancing. Where do you see the genuine opportunity — and where should property lawyers be drawing a line?

As I have said, it is all about having more time. More time to think and more time to look after the client. A client does not really care how cleverly you may have resolved an issue over a restrictive covenant on their title. They care about how quickly it was dealt with, how that was communicated, and more importantly how their lawyer made them feel. If AI tools can speed up the "paperwork", then surely that is a massive benefit to the client because the lawyer can keep them better informed.

AI is moving so rapidly I am not sure we can actually see the line at present to decide where we should be drawing it. We need to keep our eyes open and recognise that the old ways are not just changing — they are dead and not coming back. We need to move forward quickly or be left behind.

New build conveyancing & the wider market

Paul, you co-wrote the essential guide to new build conveyancing. Given current planning reform, build-to-rent growth, and the shift toward commonhold, how do you expect the new build transaction process to change over the next five years?

My views on Commonhold are well known. I am not sure it is the solution, but the politicians feel it is "new and shiny" so they will pursue it — for now. I am still not convinced that something that failed 25 years ago is going to be accepted universally now.

However, with that proposed change, the fact that the Government needs to save money and wishes to use AI, and the current Government has a published manifesto that means they have to build 1.5 million new homes in 5 years (that is 821 new homes a day) — they need to get a move on with delivery.

I suspect that if they really wanted to boost the new build market they should bring back Help to Buy or some other scheme to encourage developers and buyers. That will mean the process should also be resolved.

The new homes process is designed for speed. Typically a 28-day exchange to keep the buyer (and their advisors) focussed on the prize of the property. Developers I have worked with over the years are all about the flow of information. If they know why something is being delayed they will not be happy, as it is affecting their sales pipeline, but they will tolerate it if they have transparency.

I think that if even more information could be shared with developers, this would help the process. A clean flow of information is what I always sought when I was "on the tools" for all parties, and the most successful developers (and Estate Agents) have that nailed.

With technology being as it is, the process should be quicker. However, I still stand by the view that the delays in property transactions are not necessarily anything more complicated than people and money. Yes, there will be other issues that come up every now and again, but usually it is folks and/or their cash.

No UK AI Bill (yet)

An anticipated UK AI bill did not materialise in 2025. The government appears focused instead on innovation through AI Growth Zones and regulatory sandboxes. Whether a dedicated AI bill will appear in 2026 remains uncertain.

I am not convinced that politicians have the knowledge or gumption to be commenting on this at this stage. The UK is probably the third most advanced in the world after the USA and China on AI. We do not need Government intervention in the same at this stage, until they understand it more.

We also do not need government intervention to stifle growth. I firmly believe that AI is the new Industrial Revolution, so we should be prepared for an epoch shift. I would not want this country to be left behind by legislation getting in the way of the same.

Yes, AI does need to be regulated — but not in a way that Government does not understand, or in a way that stifles potential growth in our economy, which is in desperate need of it.

Last thoughts

I am about to start a weekly post on my LinkedIn account about technology and the changes it is bringing. The idea is to get folks to engage and realise that this massive change is coming to professional services — and they need to engage with it or become extinct. Not just irrelevant, but dead to the conversation.

I am excited about several internal initiatives we are running when it comes to using technology to make the lives of our clients and teams easier.