Category: Metro

Firm wants to ensure ‘safe and proper’ use

Hill Dickinson has restricted general access to several AI tools after an upsurge in usage by its lawyers and staff.

The new rules have come in place following a “significant increase in usage”, much of which was not in line with the firm’s AI policy, according to an email seen by BBC News.

A senior director at the outfit is said to have issued a warning about the use of AI tools, with staff now only allowed to access the tools after a request process.

In the same email Hill Dickinson’s chief technology officer stated that the firm had detected more than 32,000 ChatGPT hits, 3,000 DeepSeek hits, and 50,000 Grammarly searches in a single week between January and February.

It is not clear, however, how many of the firm’s staff have accessed the tools, or on how many separate occasions. Each time a user visits the site they could register multiple hits.

The email, sent to staff, reportedly said: “We have been monitoring usage of Al tools, particularly publicly available generative Al solutions, and have noticed a significant increase in usage of, and uploading of files to, such tools.”

In a statement to LegaL Cheek, a firm spokesperson said: “Like many law firms, we are aiming to positively embrace the use of AI tools to enhance our capabilities while always ensuring safe and proper use by our people and for our clients. AI can have many benefits for how we work, but we are mindful of the risks it carries and must ensure there is human oversight throughout.”

“Last week, we sent an update to our colleagues regarding our AI policy, which was launched in September 2024,” they continued. “This policy does not discourage the use of AI, but simply ensures that our colleagues use such tools safely and responsibly — including having an approved case for using AI platforms, prohibiting the uploading of client information and validating the accuracy of responses provided by large language models.”

“We are confident that, in line with this policy and the additional training and tools we are providing around AI, its usage will remain safe, secure and effective,” the spokesperson added.

News of the restriction comes less than a week after the Master of the Rolls said that lawyers and judges have “no real choice” but to embrace AI, albeit “cautiously and responsibly”.

February 2027

The criminal trial of five former top executives from the collapsed law firm Axiom Ince has now been scheduled.

The group, comprising the firm’s former chief executive and director Pragnesh Modhwadia, 41, co-director Shyam Mistry, 35, chief financial officer Muhammad Ali, 42, chief technology officer Rupesh Karawadra, 40, and vice president of IT Jayesh Anjaria, 46, will face trial in February 2027.

They appeared in Southwark Crown Court yesterday, and face a range of charges including fraud and forgery.

During the hearing Ali denied two counts of fraud and a third count of conspiracy to use false instruments, with the other four defendants not entering pleas at this stage.

Modhwadia and Mistry are both charged with two counts of fraud by abuse of position, and with conspiring to conceal, destroy or dispose of documents relevant to a Solicitors Regulation Authority investigation into the firm. Karawadra and Anjaria are charged as part of the conspiracy.

All of the defendants are also charged with conspiring to mislead the SRA using false documents.

The preliminary trial estimate suggests a length of 8-10 weeks, with each defendant released on conditional bail. The decision to prosecute the firm’s leaders came in December last year, with the Serious Fraud Office leading the charge.

She was part of a case he worked on

A barrister has been suspended for two years after making “inappropriate comments” and behaving in a “sexual nature” towards a female involved in a case he was working on.

Alan Wheetman, who was called in 1995, was brought before a bar tribunal for his actions.

A notice, published by the Bar Standards Board in advance of the tribunal’s full written judgment, states that Wheetman’s behaviour was “likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in him or in the profession”.

It goes on to say that Wheetman’s sanction arose from “inappropriate comments and behaviour of a sexual nature” made towards a female involved in a case he was working on in the magistrates court.

Wheetman is said to have showed his photography website to an individual “which included semi-nude images”, before offering to take photos of the woman “with the suggestion this could be without clothing”.

Commenting on the order, a BSB spokesperson said: “Inappropriate conduct of a sexualised nature is not something that the public should expect from members of the Bar and the decision to prevent Mr Wheetman from practising reflects the seriousness of his conduct.”

A listing on PurplePort, a website for freelance models and photographers, under the name Alan Wheetman has republished the BSB’s statement.

The profile has also added a comment on the disciplinary action, saying, “Please let the following serve as a warning to all photographers who are employed or working in a regulated profession.”

“Please be very careful when engaging people in discussions about modelling or showing any images from your portfolio to anybody in the workplace. What may be viewed by some as as an innocent discussion about your hobby or pastime, can so readily be interpreted by others as ‘inappropriate comments and behaviour of a sexual nature’”.

The decision is open to appeal.

Legal profession vocal in objection to government cuts

A decision on the future of solicitor apprenticeship funding is expected soon, Legal Cheek understands, as law firms and training providers push for continued government support.

Concerns have been mounting over the proposed removal of levy funding for certain Level 7 apprenticeships, including the six-year solicitor apprenticeship — an alternative route into the legal profession. This funding, contributed by businesses with an annual wage bill exceeding £3 million, enables apprenticeship training providers, including law firms, to reclaim their contributions.

Training providers and firms have warned that defunding solicitor apprenticeships could severely limit access to the profession for those unable to afford traditional qualification routes.

While the government has not yet confirmed which apprenticeships will lose levy support, it has signalled that more employers will be expected to fund a significant number of these programmes themselves. Legal Cheek understands the move aligns with broader policy aims to focus government funding on those at the start of their careers rather than subsidising qualifications for individuals already established in the workforce.

A spokesperson for the Department for Education (DfE) told Legal Cheek:

“Skills will power this mission-driven government and our Plan for Change. We’ll be asking more employers to step forward and fund Level 7 apprenticeships themselves to ensure apprenticeships support those who need them most, while also meeting the needs of individuals, employers, and the economy. Further details will follow, informed by Skills England’s recommendations on priority skills needs.”

Last week, Fletchers added its voice to the concern over the potential cuts. The personal injury specialist, which has taken on 100 apprenticeships through the apprenticeship levy, warned that defunding the programmes would be a “disaster for the legal profession” and significantly harm social mobility and diversity.

Lorna Bailey, associate and head of learning and development at Fletchers, described the move as “extraordinary”, arguing that it contradicts the government’s commitments to social mobility. She warned that defunding would reinstate a “class ceiling” on young people’s ambitions, making training contracts even more competitive and accessible only to those who can afford course fees of up to £50,000.

Many City law firms have embraced solicitor apprenticeships in recent years, offering school leavers the chance to train while working, rather than pursuing the traditional training contract route. However, the number of apprentices remains relatively small compared to those entering the profession via the postgraduate SQE pathway.

With the government’s final decision expected shortly, the legal sector will be watching closely to see whether solicitor apprenticeships will continue to receive levy funding or whether firms will be required to shoulder more of the financial burden themselves.