Research found consumer-facing legal AI tools lack clear safeguards, complaints routes and access to redress
The Legal Services Board (LSB) has said that artificial intelligence tools could significantly improve access to legal services, but new research suggests consumers using these services may lack important protections if problems arise.
In findings published on 11 June 2026, the LSB reported that people are already using AI-powered tools to help resolve legal issues, including housing disputes, employment rights concerns, debt problems and family matters. For individuals unable to afford traditional legal advice, these tools can provide guidance and help them better understand their options.
The regulator commissioned two reports to examine how AI legal tools operate and whether sufficient safeguards exist for consumers. According to the first report, AI-powered legal technology has the potential to improve access to justice for many people who currently receive no professional legal support. The research noted that around 32% of adults in England and Wales who experience a legal problem do not obtain professional assistance, often because of cost, complexity or uncertainty about where to seek help.
However, the report found that standards specifically designed for consumer-facing AI legal services are largely absent. Most existing standards focus on broader areas such as AI governance, data protection or the conduct of regulated legal professionals. The study also found that 58% of existing standards are non-binding guidance without enforcement mechanisms.
Researchers identified several areas where consumer protection appears weakest. These include recognising vulnerable users, directing people to regulated or specialist support when appropriate, and providing clear complaints procedures and access to redress if something goes wrong.
The second report surveyed 1,000 adults across England and Wales and found generally positive attitudes towards AI in legal services. The research showed that 70% of respondents believed AI could make legal services easier to use, while 66% expected improved accessibility and 64% anticipated greater affordability.
Despite that support, respondents identified several safeguards they considered essential. These included minimum standards of accuracy, informed consent before consequential actions are taken, ongoing human oversight, access to compensation or redress where harm occurs, and protection of personal information and user safety.
The LSB said a protection gap currently exists between regulated legal services and direct-to-consumer AI tools. Consumers who receive advice from regulated solicitors or law firms benefit from professional oversight and established complaints procedures, while users of standalone AI legal tools may not have access to equivalent protections.
The LSB noted that users of standalone AI legal tools may have no clear complaints process or route to redress if something goes wrong, despite many consumers expecting protections similar to those available when using regulated legal service providers.
Richard Orpin, Chief Executive of the LSB, said the research revealed a gap between consumer expectations and existing safeguards. He added that the organisation would work with government, regulators, innovators and consumer groups to consider proportionate measures that protect consumers while supporting innovation and growth in the legal services sector.
The LSB has also published its AI plan for 2026/27 and joined the government’s AI Growth Lab initiative, which will allow lawtech companies to test AI products under regulatory supervision before entering the market