TL;DR

UK law firms are reporting a surge in AI-generated letters, emails, patent applications and litigation strategies from clients. The extra review time is raising costs, with some firms absorbing the burden on fixed-fee contracts and others warning that hourly rates will reflect the additional work.

The barrage problem

One partner at a US-headquartered litigation firm told the FT his team had received so many AI-generated emails from a single client that the firm could not keep up with the “barrage.” The firm now responds only at “appropriate intervals” to points it considers “material” — a rationing strategy driven by volume, not quality.

The pattern extends beyond email. A patent attorney partner reported that clients regularly approach her firm with AI-generated patents that have encountered “significant problems” at the patent office. The chatbot output typically generated “pages and pages of stuff to go through that may or may not be relevant,” slowing the review process rather than accelerating it.

Fee implications

For clients billed hourly, the maths is straightforward. As Kerry Westland, head of Addleshaw Goddard’s innovation group, put it: “Obviously that’s another hour on the clock if you’re asking us to review the AI output.” The firm receives AI-generated correspondence across all practice areas, and the material often needs “properly validating and reviewing.”

Fixed-fee arrangements face a different pressure. One patent attorney said her firm had been absorbing the costs of reviewing AI-generated documents but may raise charges — the traditional fixed-fee model assumed a certain volume and quality of client input that AI is disrupting.

An ironic reversal

Greg Falkof, senior disputes partner at Mishcon de Reya, noted clients increasingly using AI to draft litigation strategies or letters on the firm’s letterhead. The AI output often fails to follow house style and is more problematic when dealing with business owners than in-house legal teams.

The dynamic creates an ironic reversal: AI tools marketed as reducing legal costs are generating additional work for the lawyers meant to benefit. UK firm Shoosmiths added £1 million to its bonus pot for staff entering one million prompts into Microsoft’s Copilot, while Clifford Chance has made AI-related job cuts — showing the profession’s response remains uneven.

Looking forward

For UK businesses using AI to prepare legal correspondence, the message from law firms is clear: AI-generated material still needs professional review, and that review is not free. The cost savings from drafting with AI may be offset — or exceeded — by the fees lawyers charge to clean up the output.