Mauricio Figueroa summarises the key points from the SCL AI Conference hosted by Herbert Smith Freehills on 8th October.
Practitioners, lawmakers, academics, trainees, in-house lawyers, and civil society representatives gathered at Herbert Smith Freehills’ offices in London for the annual Society for Computers and Law AI conference. The event brought together experts to explore the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence and legal practice.
Minesh Tanna, Chair of the SCL AI Group, opened the event alongside Alexander Amato-Cravero, welcoming attendees and emphasising the growing opportunities AI presents for the legal profession.
Keynote: Lord Holmes on AI Regulation
In his keynote opening the event, Lord Holmes of Richmond MBE discussed his bill on AI regulation, emphasising that in the UK, it is now time to legislate and have our own legislation beyond the EU AIA paradigm. He highlighted the UK’s strengths which lie in its strong institutions, including legal firms and the nature of English common law. In his view, his bill benefits from principles-based and outward-focused approaches, which incorporates social, democratic, and economic factors. He advocated for right-sized legislation to provide certainty, clarity, and market stability, adding that such principles are beneficial not just for AI, but for regulation in general.
Lord Holmes also highlighted that together, we can make a difference to the legal landscape of AI, which is why events like this are so important.
Regulatory Frameworks and Industry Impact
The conference moved into an interactive panel session co-chaired by Minesh Tanna and Professor Lorna Woods OBE of the University of Essex. Panellists included Emerita Professor Lilian Edwards, Sara Vero of JP Morgan Chase, Charlie Lyons-Rothbart from the SCL AI Committee, and Stephen Dowling, CEO of TrialView.
Lilian Edwards began by pointing out that China has been considerably ahead in regulating deepfakes and generative AI since 2021, taking a vertical approach to AI regulation. She also noted the shift in the USA, where there is an increasing focus on regulatory efforts at both the national and subnational (state) levels, reflecting a transitional stage in the AI landscape.
In the UK, she asked, where are we headed? Much attention is places towards the AI Safety Institute, but other crucial issues such as discrimination, competition, and misinformation seem to be overlooked and are more of a current challenge. Additionally, she clarified that the EU AIA is not a hard regulatory approach but more of a co-regulatory scheme, involving self-labelling and conformity with technical standards. She mentioned that 2026 and 2027 will see the development of these standards, indicating that we still have a long way to go.
In the meantime, Edwards emphasised that while new laws are being developed, existing laws—like data protection, consumer law, copyright, and hate speech regulations—are where most of the discussion should be rooted. Lorna Woods added that litigation and class action in the US are changing the landscape, which brings additional challenges to the AI sector.
Charlie Lyons-Rothbart elaborated on the regulatory compliance schemes, asking what startups and scale-ups have in common. They highlighted that they often have small teams, limited cash, and a need to attract funding, all while entering the market to generate revenue. Complying with the technical documentation required by the EU AIA, he explained, brings substantial compliance costs and requires specialised teams. What may seem straightforward on paper is often highly impractical for these smaller companies.
Sara Vero (JP Morgan) discussed how AI regulation impacts businesses operating in regulated industries, such as banking and finance. She explained how professionals in the field are identifying areas of AI regulation that are connected in other regulatory frameworks, all which requires an interdisciplinary approach. She noted that AI regulation is increasingly touching every aspect of her organisation’s operations.
Stephen Dowling shared his experience running a litigation platform (TrialView), classified as a high-risk system under the EU AIA. He explained how they assist litigators, arbitrators, and judges by providing digital tools for preparing and conducting hearings. However, he pointed out that even before the AIA, they had to align with best practices and standards due to market demands.
Industry Perspectives on AI
The second session, chaired by Shanthini Satyendra, Vice-Chair of the SCL AI Committee, began with an address from SCL President Richard Susskind, who encouraged young professionals to engage with the society through initiatives like the SCL junior lawyer essay competition.
In the panel, Luke Pearce discussed their experience with transcription and customer calls, emphasising the importance of starting with a human-in-the-loop approach before moving towards fully autonomous solutions. Angela Lughet shared insights from McKinsey’s latest global AI survey.
Lord Clement-Jones stressed that AI is different from other technologies; it’s not like the arrival of spreadsheets in organisations. AI changes workforces and processes and requires a deeper level of understanding. He noted that only about half of CEOs are actively engaged in AI initiatives within their organisations. He also commented that if the UK had been more formally involved in the EU AIA, it could have had exert a much more defined influence in the text and form. While he doesn’t disagree with the AIA, he believes there are still opportunities for improvement. He concurred with Lilian Edwards’ previous intervention, stating that the so-called existential risks are not the ones requiring immediate attention, but rather the challenges we face today.
AI in Legal Services
In the third session, chaired by John Maton, panellists Henry Goodwin of Leo Capital, Sarah Harris of Kingsley Napley LLP, and Ashley Winton of the Data Protection Forum, discussed AI’s role in legal services. Goodwin compared AI’s current trajectory to the rise of software in the legal industry, noting that AI adoption is following a similar path. Harris highlighted the need for AI tools to bridge the gap between junior and senior lawyers, while Winton argued that new areas of customer-consumer transactions are yet to be found.
Mock adjudication
The last session dealt with an AI Mock Adjudication, including Dispute Notice, Response Notice, and Adjudicator appointment. Iain Munro (Chair), Barrister and Mediator, Lawrence Akka KC, Barrister and Arbitrator, Twenty Essex, Dr Gill Hunt, Independent IT Expert, Matthew Lavy KC, Barrister, 4 Pump Court; SCL Trustee. The recording is available here:
Additionally
The conference also marked the launch of the SCL Mediation Scheme and the SCL EU AI Act Contractual Clauses. Throughout the day, David Sharp, Amy Gibson, and James Phoenix provided additional insights into AI’s application across various sectors.
Mauricio Figueroa is a lawyer (UNAM, Mexico – Tel Aviv University, Israel) and is now pursuing a Ph.D. in Newcastle Law School, where he is a member of the research group “Law and Futures”. @mfiguerres
