Will AI replace Barristers and judges?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 75 official task statements scored for Barristers and judges (United Kingdom, SOC 2411), 25% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 36 out of 100 (range 30–42, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.

Which tasks in “Barristers and judges” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Monitor and integrate new legal developments relevant to the field” (83/100, very high); “Manage legal files and utilise client case management and accounting systems” (75/100, high); “Analyse legal precedents and relevant laws for cases similar to the current one” (72/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.

Which tasks in “Barristers and judges” stay human?

About 59% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Represent clients in court proceedings” (4/100, minimal); “Present legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case” (4/100, minimal); “Present cases to the judge and jury” (4/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.

What should someone working in “Barristers and judges” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 25% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 59% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.

How is the AI exposure score for Barristers and judges calculated?

Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 75 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

UK dataswitch to US

Barristers and judges

compiling evidence for legal investigations and court proceedings, serving in judicial tribunals to adjudicate disputes and facilitating discussions between trial solicitors and judges to resolve legal issues. If that's your week, this page is about your job.

The honest answer

AI is already taking a real slice of the routine work here: analysing legal precedents and relevant laws for cases similar to the current one. That is a slice of tasks, not of you.

Your move: what you can actually do about this ↓

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 25%
changing shape: 17%
staying human: 59%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

Whole-job exposure score 36 out of 100 (30–42 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 75 scored tasks. The number is the support for the sentence above it, not a headline about anyone’s future.

How we know this

What is measured: Every published task statement for barristers and judges is rated on five dimensions: can a model produce the output, does the work need a body in a room, does it need a legally accountable person, does it depend on a person being trusted in the moment, and how much data exists. A published formula turns those five ratings into the score; the model never writes the number.

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, examining and cross-examine witnesses to gather evidence in legal proceedings, stays yours. The tools change, the responsibility doesn't.

Your week, as this page understands it

Barristers and judges prepare and conduct court cases on behalf of clients, preside over judicial proceedings, and pronounce judgements within a variety of court settings and tribunals. The job title says “barristers” or “judges”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: examining and cross-examine witnesses to gather evidence in legal proceedings. That is the thing someone has to be right about.

The exposed part of this job is specific, and we won’t pretend it is coming back. But barristers and judges is not one task. It is 75 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is examining and cross-examine witnesses to gather evidence in legal proceedings, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 25%
changing shape: 17%
staying human: 59%

These bars are tasks changing hands, not people being counted out. The ledger below shows which.

How we know this

How the bar is built: Each task’s share of the bar is its published importance weight, so a task you do all day counts for more than one you do twice a year.

Release: 2026-q4.1, scores computed 2026-08-05. Read the full method.

Your job, task by task

These are the official task statements for this occupation, in plain English, sorted by what the evidence says is happening to each one. The official wording sits under every line so you can check the rewrite against it.

One row is marked low confidence, so treat it as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Shifting to AI

19 tasks

Tasks today’s tools can already do most of. This is the part we will not soften: where these rows are the bulk of your week, the week changes.

Compiling evidence for legal investigations and court proceedings
This is reading one thing and writing another: evidence in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 95 · 2411/01
Source: “Compile evidence for legal investigations and court proceedings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Gathering and organising documents into an evidence bundle suits software, with counsel checking relevance.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing cases for court hearings to ensure effective legal representation
This is reading one thing and writing another: cases in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 95 · 2411/01
Source: “Prepare cases for court hearings to ensure effective legal representation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Building the case file from documents is desk work software already drafts well, with counsel checking it before use.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing legal precedents and relevant laws for cases similar to the current one
This is reading one thing and writing another: legal precedents in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2411/01
Source: “Analyse legal precedents and relevant laws for cases similar to the current one.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Precedent research over published judgments is fast and reliable with tools, subject to counsel's checking.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Conducting detailed research on specific legal matters to support case preparation and advice
This is reading one thing and writing another: detailed research in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2411/01
Source: “Conduct detailed research on specific legal matters to support case preparation and advice.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Legal research on a specific matter drafts well from published sources, with counsel verifying it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Changing shape

13 tasks

Tasks where the machine takes the producing and a person keeps the checking, the deciding, or the answering-for-it. For most jobs this is the biggest group, and it is where "transformation, not termination" is literally visible.

Drafting legal arguments for court cases
The software now makes the first pass at legal arguments, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 95 · 2411/01
Source: “Draft legal arguments for court cases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (36–50 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Argument drafts come out usable but need real reworking by counsel, who answers for what the court sees.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interpreting, and applying legaling principles to specific cases or situations
The software now makes the first pass at principles, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Interpret and apply legal principles to specific cases or situations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (52–60 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Applying settled legal principles to a set of facts is well-documented reasoning software does well, with a lawyer answerable for it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing legal documents for court proceedings
The software now makes the first pass at legal documents, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Prepare legal documents for court proceedings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Court documents follow set formats and draft well, but counsel is answerable for what is filed.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Staying human

43 tasks

Tasks that stay with a person, because they happen in the physical world, because the rules need someone accountable, or because the value is that a specific person does them.

Providing legal advice on prosecuting or defending legal cases
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for legal advice, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2411/01
Source: “Provide legal advice on prosecuting or defending legal cases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: This advice rests on courtroom experience, and clients act on it because of who gives it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Deciding on exceptions, motions and admissibility of evidence
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for exceptions, motions and admissibility of evidence, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2411/02
Source: “Decide on exceptions, motions, and admissibility of evidence.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Rulings on evidence are decisions the law reserves to a judge, even though the underlying reasoning is well documented.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Hearing appeals and reviewing decisions of lower courts
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for appeals, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2411/02
Source: “Hear appeals and review decisions of lower courts.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Only a judge may decide an appeal, though reviewing lower-court reasoning is documented work software can assist with.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.

Show the other 65 tasks

Monitoring and integrating new legal developments relevant to the field
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: this work in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2411/02
Source: “Monitor and integrate new legal developments relevant to the field.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 83 out of 100 (79–87 allowing for uncertainty): very high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: New judgments and legislation are published constantly, and tracking and summarising them is ideal computer work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Managing legal files and utilising client case management and accounting systems
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: legal files in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2411/01
Source: “Manage legal files and utilise client case management and accounting systems.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 75 out of 100 (71–79 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Case and accounts systems are built for this, so most file management is already software work.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Researching legal records and case law
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: legal records in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Research legal records and case law.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Case law is published and searchable, so research comes back fast, though counsel still checks every authority.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Producing first drafts of legal documents using digital tools
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: first drafts of legal documents in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2411/01
Source: “Produce first drafts of legal documents using digital tools.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 72 out of 100 (68–76 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: First drafts of standard legal documents come out well, with counsel editing before anything is used.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Preparing legal briefs for court cases to support legal arguments
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: legal briefs in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2411/01
Source: “Prepare legal briefs for court cases to support legal arguments.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Drafting written arguments from case papers is the document work current tools handle to a standard counsel can tidy.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing witness statements and reports for case investigation
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: witness statements in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Analyse witness statements and reports for case investigation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Comparing statements for inconsistencies is careful reading that software does well, with counsel judging significance.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Summarising reasons for the court to support the client's case
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: reasons in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Summarise reasons for the court to support the client's case.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Pulling the reasons supporting a case into a clear written summary is document work tools already produce to a usable standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Analysing and evaluating data to inform strategies in legal casework
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: data in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2411/01
Source: “Analyse and evaluate data to inform strategies in legal casework.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Sorting and interpreting case data to shape strategy is analysis software does quickly from material already held electronically.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Applying financial information to caseloads to ensure value for money and supporting objectives
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: financial information in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2411/01
Source: “Apply financial information to caseloads to ensure value for money and support objectives.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Tracking case spend against budget is routine number work that accounting and case-management software already handles.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Drawing up wills
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: wills in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2411/01
Source: “Draw up wills.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Anyone may draft a will in the UK and standard wills draft well, so the check is professional care.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Searching for and examining public and legal records to establish ownership
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: and examining public in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 50 · 2411/01
Source: “Search for and examine public and legal records to establish ownership.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Ownership records are digital and searchable, so this is largely retrieval work with a lawyer checking the results.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing for trials by reviewing legal documents
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: trials in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2411/02
Source: “Prepare for trials by reviewing legal documents.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reviewing trial papers and pulling out what matters is document work current tools handle to a standard counsel can refine.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing complaints, petitions, motions or pleadings to determine issues involved or basis for relief
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: complaints, petitions, motions or pleadings in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 85 · 2411/02
Source: “Review complaints, petitions, motions, or pleadings to determine issues involved or basis for relief.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Reading pleadings to identify the issues is structured document analysis software does quickly and accurately.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Monitoring compliance with laws, regulations and internal policies
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: compliance in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2411/02
Source: “Monitor compliance with laws, regulations and internal policies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (59–73 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Checking activity against published rules is a documented, repeatable exercise software does well under legal supervision.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Investigating specific legal issues and drafting legal opinions
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: specific legal issues in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2411/02
Source: “Investigate specific legal issues and draft legal opinions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 66 out of 100 (62–70 allowing for uncertainty): high exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Researching a legal point and drafting the opinion is document work current tools do well, with a lawyer reviewing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing legal documents for accuracy and compliance with relevant laws
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at legal documents, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2411/01
Source: “Review legal documents for accuracy and compliance with relevant laws.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Checking documents against legal requirements is systematic work software does well, with counsel answerable.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Drafting and finalising legal documents
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at legal documents, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2411/01
Source: “Draft and finalise legal documents, including wills and contracts, for clients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Wills and contracts may lawfully be drafted by anyone here, so the limit is professional responsibility, not law.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Writing legal opinions for solicitors and other professionals
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at legal opinions, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2411/01
Source: “Write legal opinions for solicitors and other professionals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Written opinions are document work software drafts well, but the professional judgement carries a barrister's name and responsibility.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interpreting civil rights laws and equal opportunity regulations for individuals or employers
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at civil rights laws, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 70 · 2411/01
Source: “Interpret civil rights laws and equal opportunity regulations for individuals or employers.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 56 out of 100 (49–63 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: The legislation and guidance are public, so interpretation drafts well, though the advice carries counsel's name.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Determining case ramifications by studying the Constitution
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at case ramifications, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Determine case ramifications by studying the Constitution, statutes, decisions, regulations, and orders of quasi-judicial bodies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Working out what a case means across statutes and rulings needs experienced legal judgement over published material.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Reviewing legal data to assess the advisability of defending or prosecuting a lawsuit
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at legal data, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Review legal data to assess the advisability of defending or prosecuting a lawsuit.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Weighing whether to fight a case needs experienced judgement; tools can summarise the material behind it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Drafting and interpreting regulations for legal compliance and case preparation
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at regulations, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2411/01
Source: “Draft and interpret regulations for legal compliance and case preparation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Regulatory drafting and interpretation need legal precision; tools give a workable start that needs real editing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing legal services digitally, ensuring safety and security to minimise cyber risks and protecting reputation
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at legal services digitally, ensuring safety and security, but the deciding part still needs a person. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2411/01
Source: “Provide legal services digitally, ensuring safety and security to minimise cyber risks and protect reputation.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 50 out of 100 (43–57 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; mistakes that are cheap to catch.
The rating behind it: Setting up secure digital delivery of legal services follows documented practice, though the security judgements stay with the firm.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Filing appeals in state and federal courts of appeal
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at appeals, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 80 · 2411/01
Source: “File appeals in state and federal courts of appeal.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 47 out of 100 (40–54 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Preparing appeal papers drafts well, but conducting litigation is restricted to people authorised to do it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Establishing enforcement procedures
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at enforcement procedures, but someone has to be answerable for the result, and it cannot be the software. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 75 · 2411/01
Source: “Establish enforcement procedures.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 43 out of 100 (31–55 allowing for uncertainty): partial exposure, low confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Enforcement procedures draw on published rules, but the standing decision belongs to the office holder who sets them.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing advice to clients on probate activities and estate administration
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for advice, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 50 · 2411/01
Source: “Provide advice to clients on probate activities and estate administration.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 37 out of 100 (30–44 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Probate paperwork is restricted to authorised people, so advice here is tied to a qualified professional.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing written opinions or decisions regarding cases
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for written opinions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2411/02
Source: “Prepare written opinions or decisions regarding cases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: A judgment must be the judge's own reasoning, though tools can assemble the material behind it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Advising magistrates on legal matters and case law
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for magistrates, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2411/02
Source: “Advise magistrates on legal matters and case law.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 36 out of 100 (29–43 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: reading one thing and writing another; the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Legal advice to the bench draws on well-documented law software can assemble, though an adviser sits in court and answers for it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 3/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Evaluating and advising clients on the legal strength of their case based on evidence
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2411/01
Source: “Evaluate and advise clients on the legal strength of their case based on evidence.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 32 out of 100 (25–39 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can weigh evidence and sketch the merits, though a qualified lawyer must stand behind advice a client will act on.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Receiving and implementing legal instructions from clients to prepare cases
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles legal instructions and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Receive and implement legal instructions from clients to prepare cases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 31 out of 100 (24–38 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Turning a client's instructions into a workable case plan is largely documentation, though the instructions themselves come from a conversation.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Providing legal advice to clients on specific matters
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for legal advice, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2411/01
Source: “Provide legal advice to clients on specific matters.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Legal advice is not restricted by law here, but clients rely on counsel's judgement and answerability.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Establishing and verifying bases for legal proceedings with colleagues specialised in relevant legal areas
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for bases, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Establish and verify bases for legal proceedings with colleagues specialised in relevant legal areas.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Settling the legal basis for a case is done with specialist colleagues, each answerable for their part.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Engaging in continuous professional development to maintain or improve knowledge and skills
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for continuous professional development, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 60 · 2411/01
Source: “Engage in continuous professional development to maintain or improve knowledge and skills.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Keeping practising rights means the barrister must do the learning; tools only help find material.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Guiding clients on business transactions
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 50 · 2411/01
Source: “Guide clients on business transactions, including mergers and acquisitions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 30 out of 100 (23–37 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Transaction guidance mixes documented practice with judgement clients pay a named professional to provide.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Awarding compensation for damages to litigants in civil cases based on jury or court findings
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for compensation, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2411/02
Source: “Award compensation for damages to litigants in civil cases based on jury or court findings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Damages are calculated using published guidelines software handles, but the award itself is an order only a court can make.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Granting divorces
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for divorces, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2411/02
Source: “Grant divorces.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 29 out of 100 (22–36 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: The paperwork is already largely online, yet the decree itself must be granted by a judge or legal adviser.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Exercising judgement to develop effective case presentation theories
staying human
The ratings behind this row put judgement well outside what today's tools can do on their own.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Exercise judgement to develop effective case presentation theories.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 28 out of 100 (21–35 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the five ratings behind the score, with no single dominant reason.
The rating behind it: Deciding how to run a case is experienced courtroom judgement that is rarely written down anywhere.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Resolving legal cases by applying appropriate legal strategies
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for legal cases, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2411/01
Source: “Resolve legal cases by applying appropriate legal strategies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Choosing and running a strategy through to resolution mixes judgement, negotiation and professional responsibility that software only partly supports.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Consulting experts for opinions in custody or child welfare cases
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for experts, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2411/02
Source: “Consult experts for opinions in custody or child welfare cases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 26 out of 100 (19–33 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Instructing and questioning experts follows documented practice, though choosing whom to trust in a child's case rests on professional judgement.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Dividing assets between spouses
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for assets, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2411/02
Source: “Divide assets between spouses.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 21 out of 100 (14–28 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Software can model a fair split of assets, but dividing them is an order only a court can make.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Executing the wills of individuals as an executor
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for the wills of individuals, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 60 · 2411/01
Source: “Execute the wills of individuals as an executor.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 20 out of 100 (13–27 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Administering an estate mixes paperwork software can draft with property matters and dealings with grieving families.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Interpreting and enforcing existing rules of procedure
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for rules of procedure, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2411/02
Source: “Interpret and enforce existing rules of procedure.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (14–22 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Procedure rules are documented and searchable, but enforcing them in a live hearing is a judge's authority.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Imposing restrictions upon parties in civil cases until trials can be held
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for restrictions upon parties, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2411/02
Source: “Impose restrictions upon parties in civil cases until trials can be held.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 18 out of 100 (11–25 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Interim orders follow familiar patterns, yet imposing them is a judicial act reserved to the judge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Liaising with solicitors and other legal professionals to negotiate the terms of a claim
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles solicitors and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 80 · 2411/01
Source: “Liaise with solicitors and other legal professionals to negotiate the terms of a claim.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Negotiating terms depends on live give-and-take with the other side's lawyers, which cannot be handed to software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Establishing new rules in situations lacking established procedures
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for new rules, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2411/02
Source: “Establish new rules in situations lacking established procedures.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 16 out of 100 (9–23 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Making a rule where none exists calls for original judgement with little to learn from, and it carries judicial authority.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
Presenting a coherent submission to the court
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for a coherent submission, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2411/01
Source: “Present a coherent submission to the court.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (11–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the same decision, made over and over; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Software can draft the argument, but only an authorised advocate may actually deliver a submission to the court.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 2/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interviewing clients and witnesses
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles clients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 90 · 2411/01
Source: “Interview clients and witnesses.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Interviews and conferences depend on live rapport and reading people, which software cannot do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Meeting with experts or claimants to discuss case details and progress
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles experts and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 75 · 2411/01
Source: “Meet with experts or claimants to discuss case details and progress.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 12 out of 100 (5–19 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: These conferences depend on live discussion and trust with the experts and clients involved.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 1/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Addressing legal issues, such as child abuse and discipline, to inform custody arrangements
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for legal issues, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2411/02
Source: “Address legal issues, such as child abuse and discipline, to inform custody arrangements.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 11 out of 100 (4–18 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Decisions affecting children's safety are made by the court, and the reasoning must be the judge's own.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Holding client meetings to prepare for court cases
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for client meetings, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2411/01
Source: “Hold client meetings to prepare for court cases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A conference where a client trusts you with their case is built on being present with them, not on generated text.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Meeting with clients and taking on cases
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2411/01
Source: “Meet with clients and take on cases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Accepting instructions is a personal professional commitment made face to face, and only counsel can give it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Negotiating settlements for specific civil disputes
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for settlements, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2411/01
Source: “Negotiate settlements for specific civil disputes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Settlement comes from live bargaining between people who can commit, which software cannot do.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presiding over hearings and assessing allegations to determine if evidence supports charges
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for hearings, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2411/02
Source: “Preside over hearings and assess allegations to determine if evidence supports charges.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Presiding over a hearing and deciding whether charges are supported is a judicial act the law does not allow machines to make.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Conducting preliminary hearings to decide if there is reasonable and probable cause to hold defendants in serious criminal cases
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for preliminary hearings, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2411/02
Source: “Conduct preliminary hearings to decide if there is reasonable and probable cause to hold defendants in serious criminal cases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Deciding whether there is cause to hold a defendant is a judge's decision made in a live hearing.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Serving in judicial tribunals to adjudicate disputes
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for judicial tribunals, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2411/02
Source: “Serve in judicial tribunals to adjudicate disputes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Sitting as a tribunal member to decide a dispute is a role the law gives to appointed people, not systems.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 1/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Mediating in costs disputes between solicitors and their clients
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for costs disputes, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2411/02
Source: “Mediate in costs disputes between solicitors and their clients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (3–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Mediation works through live discussion between parties, guided by someone they both accept.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Supervising judges, court officers and court administrative staff
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for judges, court officers and court administrative staff, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 70 · 2411/02
Source: “Supervise judges, court officers, and court administrative staff.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 10 out of 100 (6–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Leading judges and court staff depends on standing and relationships built in person, which software cannot supply.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Interrogating witnesses in court
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for witnesses, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2411/01
Source: “Interrogate witnesses in court.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (2–16 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Only a barrister with rights of audience may question witnesses live in court, and reading a room cannot be handed to software.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Listening to evidence from witnesses
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for evidence, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 95 · 2411/02
Source: “Listen to evidence from witnesses, defendants and victims.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Weighing what a witness says and how they say it in the room is a judge's own act, not a transcript exercise.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Enforcing court orders regarding custody and support of children
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for court orders regarding custody, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2411/02
Source: “Enforce court orders regarding custody and support of children.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 9 out of 100 (5–13 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Enforcing orders about children involves live hearings, sensitive families and powers the law gives only to a judge.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Facilitating discussions between trial solicitors and judges to resolve legal issues
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for discussions, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 90 · 2411/02
Source: “Facilitate discussions between trial solicitors and judges to resolve legal issues.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 8 out of 100 (1–15 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Getting lawyers and judges to a workable position depends on live give-and-take between people who know each other.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 1/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Examining and cross-examine witnesses to gather evidence in legal proceedings
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: cross-examine witnesses, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 95 · 2411/01
Source: “Examine and cross-examine witnesses to gather evidence in legal proceedings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Questioning witnesses in court is reserved to authorised advocates and depends on reacting live in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presenting cases to the judge and jury
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: cases, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 95 · 2411/01
Source: “Present cases to the judge and jury.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Advocacy in court is reserved to authorised people and is done live in front of the tribunal.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Presenting legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: legal arguments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 95 · 2411/01
Source: “Present legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Arguing a case in court is reserved to authorised advocates and depends on responding live in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Representing clients in court proceedings
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 95 · 2411/01
Source: “Represent clients in court proceedings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 4 out of 100 (0–8 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: work that happens in the physical world; someone qualified has to answer for it; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Appearing for a client in court is reserved by law to authorised advocates, so software cannot do it.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 2/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

What this job pays, and how many people do it

Median pay: £50,900a year, before tax, the middle of the range, so half earn more and half earn less.ashe-t14, 2025 · ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
How we know this
Source: ashe-t14
Reference period: ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025)
Rounding: Shown to the nearest £100. The exact published figure is in the downloadable dataset. We do not render pounds the survey cannot support.
People doing this job: 39,400in the UK, 2026.nomis-aps · Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period)This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.

What is deliberately not here: a forecast of how many of these jobs exist in ten years. Where an official projection exists for a market we publish it with its vintage; where it does not, we leave the space empty rather than borrow the other country’s number.

Why this is shifting

The reason is boringly specific. Most of what is shifting here is reading one thing and writing another: legal precedents in, a record out. The rows above are exactly that shape: analysing legal precedents and relevant laws for cases similar to the current one and compiling evidence for legal investigations and court proceedings. What it cannot do is be answerable: cross-examine witnesses need a named person the rules will accept, and software cannot be that person. Which is why this page talks about your tasks changing, not your job ending.

Your move

Over a pint: what I’d tell you if you were my friend

Your week is splitting in two, and which half fills it is the whole question. Analysing legal precedents and relevant laws for cases similar to the current one is going; examining and cross-examine witnesses to gather evidence in legal proceedings is not.

So, given all that: 25% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 17% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 59% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 75 scored tasks. It is not a forecast about you.

The occupation is an average and you are not, so the first job below is finding out where your own week actually sits.

This week: one thing

Print the task ledger above and put your own hours next to each row. Roughly, in pen, in one sitting. Then look at which group your hours actually pile up in. Twenty minutes, this week.

What you end up holding: your own week, on one page, sorted into what is shifting and what is not
How long it takes: about twenty minutes

If printing it isn’t practical: Read the rows off this page and write the same list on the back of an envelope. Same twenty minutes, same page, and it works just as well said out loud to someone who knows the job. The point is your hours next to the rows, not the paper it is on.

Over the next 90 days

Volunteer toward the durable end, visibly. Over the next ninety days put your hand up for the work in the bottom group (examining and cross-examine witnesses to gather evidence in legal proceedings) and let people see you doing it. Not a new project: the same job, with your mix deliberately tilted. The point is that when the rota or the reorganisation comes, the version of you people picture is the one doing the part that stays.

Over the next 12 months

Claim a specialism at the durable end and let the other end go. Over a year, deliberately become the person who handles examining and cross-examine witnesses to gather evidence in legal proceedings, and deliberately stop being the first choice for the rows in the top group. That trade costs something, because the exposed work is often the comfortable work. Decide it on purpose rather than by drift. Before you pay for anything, spend an hour with National Careers Service. It is free and government-funded, and it is listed below with the rest of the free routes.

The roads out of here

Now the roads out, with the honest bill on each one. One route survived the checks. The rest are below with the reason they did not.

Barristers and judgesSolicitors and lawyers
a year or morematched on shared tasks
One of the tasks on your list is on theirs in the same words: “present cases to the judge and jury”. Take both published task lists together and about 50% of the work in that job that the software is not taking is work you are doing today.
About 50% of it you could do on Monday. The rest is the price of the ticket.
The work the two jobs share
- You already do
  “Present cases to the judge and jury.”
  They do
  “Present cases to the judge and jury.”
- You already do
  “Present cases to the judge and jury.”
  They do
  “Present cases to the judge and jury.”
- You already do
  “Present legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case.”
  They do
  “Present legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case.”
What you would not already have: Nothing in your task list touches “guide clients on business transactions”, “negotiate settlements for specific civil disputes” or “check all documentation thoroughly before signing and implementing”. That is the part you would be learning from scratch, and it is roughly the 50% of their durable work you do not already hold.
The honest bill
Pay: £57,000 against your £50,900 (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)).
- The licence gate: Default-closed. This release carries no licence-register snapshot, so I could not check whether that job is regulated, which means I have to assume it might be. Before you spend a penny, look it up on the GOV.UK register of regulated professions; the free routes below link straight to it. The route is banded a year or more because of that unknown, not in spite of it.
- The entry ticket: Typical entry-level education is published for only ten occupations in this release, and neither this job nor that one is among them. So I cannot tell you whether a qualification stands in the way. Treat that as an open question to settle before you commit, not as a green light.
- What the pay gap is telling you: £56,977 against your £50,915, 11.9% more (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). A real difference, not a life-changing one. Take the move for the work, not the raise.
- What you live on meanwhile: Nobody is going to pay you to retrain. This is evenings and weekends alongside the job you already have, for a year or more, and if that is not possible right now then this route is not open right now, which is worth knowing before you start. The free, government-funded careers service listed below will talk the funding through with you before you pay anyone.
- Is the target job itself holding up: Solicitors and lawyers scores 39/100 on this site’s own exposure measure (low), with 25% of its tasks in the top band. Employment projections are not published for this occupation in this release, so this is the exposure leg of the check only. It passed, which is the only reason it is here.
How long: A year or more, part-time, alongside the job you have. That band is set by the unchecked licence question and by the 50% of their work you would be learning, not by any one course.
See what AI is doing to solicitors and lawyers

3 moves I checked and rejected

These are the obvious-looking jumps. They are here with their reasons rather than quietly dropped, because the ones that fail are worth knowing about. It is one less thing to turn over at night.

Legal professionals n.e.c.
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “represent clients in court proceedings”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 9% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 9% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £35,507 against your £50,915, 30.3% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Legal associate professionals
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “meet with clients and take on cases”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 8% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 8% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. It is a pay cut, in those words: £34,662 against your £50,915, 31.9% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
Legal secretaries
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour on the work AI is not taking: you already interview clients and witnesses, and their equivalent is to post legal correspondence to clients, witnesses, and court officials. Across both published task lists that is about 4% of the durable work in that job.
Why I am not recommending it: Almost none of it is work you already do: about 4% of the durable side of that job. That is a different job, not a next step. I will not move you off one melting floe onto another: 65% of its own task list already scores in the top exposure band (63/100 in this release), so the same software is eating it. It is a pay cut, in those words: £26,968 against your £50,915, 47.0% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice.
Look at that job’s page anyway →

What I’d stop worrying about

A friend tells you what not to spend fear on. This is that list.

The headline number you read somewhere
The big “X% of jobs” figures are about the whole economy, not about you. The number that describes your job is on this page: 25% of its task weight, across 75 scored tasks. Every row behind it is printed above with the source. Check ours; ignore theirs.
The whole-job doom story
Nothing on this page says this job ends. It says the mix inside it moves. Half the rows above are unchanged or changing shape, and the plan is about which half your week sits in. That is a very different problem, and a solvable one.
Panic-buying a course
Do the twenty-minute sorting exercise first. Most people who buy a course before they have done it buy the wrong one, and the free services listed below will tell you the same thing without charging for it.
The “obvious” next job everyone suggests
I checked the obvious moves and most of them did not survive. The reasons are printed with the routes above, including the pay and the gate. A move that fails on the numbers is worth knowing about so you can stop turning it over at night.

You are reading the United Kingdom figures

The United States splits this work across more than one official group, of which Lawyers is the closest. The pay and employment figures are not directly comparable, and we do not average them together.

Switch to the United States page →partial match

The other groups this work is counted across:

In US official statistics this job is counted as Lawyers, Administrative Law Judges, Adjudicators, and Hearing Officers and Judges, Magistrate Judges, and Magistrates. Pay is shown separately for each of those groups (medians cannot be averaged together), while the task list and the scores on this page are for this group only.

Your route through this

Where to go next, and what it costs

Free, and complete

The moves above cost nothing. These are the real services that go with them: public, government-funded, and free at the point of use. Nothing on this page is behind an email address or a payment.

In England:
National Careers Service
A free hour with a government-funded careers adviser is worth more than another evening of reading. In England that's the National Careers Service.
Free, government-funded
- Discover your skills and careers (the skills assessment)
In England:
National Careers Service - Find a course
Search what's actually running near you before you spend anything.
Free to search; individual courses vary
In England:
Free courses for jobs (Level 3 qualifications)
A free Level 3 qualification you already qualify for beats a paid course you don't need.
Free for eligible adults
In England:
Skills Bootcamps
Free, up to 16 weeks, and you get a job interview at the end. In England these are Skills Bootcamps - search what's running near you.
Free for eligible adults in England
- Skills Bootcamps - what they are and who can do them (DfE, Skills for Careers)
- Skills Bootcamps - JobHelp (DWP)
In Scotland:
My World of Work (Skills Development Scotland)
In Scotland it's My World of Work, from Skills Development Scotland.
Free, publicly funded
- Skills Development Scotland
In Wales:
Careers Wales
In Wales it's Careers Wales.
Free, Welsh Government-funded
In Northern Ireland:
Careers Service Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland it's the Careers Service on nidirect.
Free, Department for the Economy-funded

No Space for this job, but one for what is happening to it

Nothing Collab365 runs is built for barristers / judges, and we are not going to point you at the nearest one and call it a fit.

There is one that is not about a job title at all. The AI Authority is about being the person who directs these tools at work rather than the person they get compared to. That is worth saying here, because 25% of the work on this page is already inside what they can do.

Try The AI Authority free →

7 days free, no card needed. Explore up to 2 Spaces before you choose a plan: you pick a plan later, not now.

The AI Authority is a general community about working with AI, not a course for barristers / judges. You do not need it to act on anything here: the moves above cost nothing and stand on their own. The data on this page is the same either way.

Nearby moves

The jobs above, as pages you can read the same way as this one. Your job shares its core work with these. That is what the match is, and it is all it is.

Solicitors and lawyers →About 50% of it you could do on Monday. The rest is the price of the ticket.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for barristers / judges launches. Nothing else.

That did not look like an email address, so nothing was saved. Have another go below.

We could not save that. The fault is ours, not yours, and your address was not stored. Please try again later.

No Space for barristers / judges yet. Should there be one?

Collab365 Spaces is built by the same people as this site. We find the problems that AI and automation are creating inside one kind of work, then solve them as short courses, briefings and Blueprints. Each Space is the community too, so the research and the people doing your job are in the same place.

What a Space actually is, in full

Collab365 launches new communities where the need is real. If one for barristers / judges existed, with researched problems, courses and people in the same boat, would you want in?

Your email

We use your email address for one thing: to tell you if a Space for barristers / judges launches. We never sell it, never use it for unrelated marketing, and every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Our privacy policy has the full version.

This unlocks nothing. Every figure, every row and every step on this page is already yours, whether you fill this in or not.

No deadline on any of this. The page will still be here, and the data is refreshed on a published schedule rather than when someone wants a headline.

Questions people ask about this job

Will AI replace Barristers and judges?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 75 official task statements scored for Barristers and judges (United Kingdom, SOC 2411), 25% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 36 out of 100 (range 30–42, band: low). That is a statement about tasks, not about headcount: this measures what AI could do, not whether any employer adopts it, whether the law allows it, or whether doing the routine parts faster creates more demand for the human parts. Figures are from release 2026-q4.1.
Which tasks in “Barristers and judges” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Monitor and integrate new legal developments relevant to the field” (83/100, very high); “Manage legal files and utilise client case management and accounting systems” (75/100, high); “Analyse legal precedents and relevant laws for cases similar to the current one” (72/100, high). Each score comes from five published 0–4 ratings turned into a number by a published formula, and each carries the model's one-sentence reason on the page.
Which tasks in “Barristers and judges” stay human?: About 59% of this job's task weight sits in work that scores low for AI exposure. The lowest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Represent clients in court proceedings” (4/100, minimal); “Present legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case” (4/100, minimal); “Present cases to the judge and jury” (4/100, minimal). Low scores usually mean the task needs a body in a room, a legally accountable human, or trust built in real time. Those are the three things the scoring rubric treats as gates rather than obstacles.
What should someone working in “Barristers and judges” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 25% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 59% is not. The practical move is to spend more of your week on the tasks that score low, the ones above, and to get fluent at directing AI through the tasks that score high, because those are the parts that change whether or not you are ready for them. This page does not predict your job, and nothing here is career advice tailored to you: the score describes the occupation, not the person.
How is the AI exposure score for Barristers and judges calculated?: Each official task statement for the occupation is rated on five published 0–4 dimensions (output replicability, physical embodiment, licensed accountability, real-time human trust, and data availability) by claude-opus-5 using scoring prompt task_scoring_v1.0. The model never writes the score; a published formula turns the five ratings into a 0–100 number, so every score can be recomputed by hand. The occupation figure is the importance-weighted mean across 75 scored tasks. The prompt, the rubric, the formula and the full dataset are published at https://futureproof.collab365.com/method and https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1 under CC BY 4.0.

Where these numbers come from

About the data on this page

Provisional, because the ONS revises this figure in the autumn.
This headcount comes from a survey, not a census, so treat it as a good estimate rather than an exact count.
One row is marked low confidence, so treat it as a ballpark rather than a fine measurement.
The match between this job and its counterpart in the other country is partial, so the two pages count slightly different groups of people.
1 of this occupation's scored task statements carry a score that was measured under a different occupation's context, because the statement is shared between jobs and has only been scored once so far. Each one names the occupation it was measured under in the free routes below; none is presented as a measurement for this job.
Task clusters are not derived in this release, so the task-cluster field is empty and no Collab365 Space routing is attached to this occupation yet.

Task statements: gaisi-indexProcessing: catalogue-bridge → ssc-relatedness-weighting → task-scoring → score-aggregation
Task weights: gaisi-index (relatedness)
Scores: Rubric task_scoring_v1.0, model claude-opus-5, computed 2026-08-05.
Pay and employment: ashe-t14 (ASHE 2025 provisional (reference April 2025))nomis-aps (Apr 2025-Mar 2026 (latest APS 12-month period))

Figures on this page come from release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Every release keeps its own permanent address, so a figure you cite in March is still there, unchanged, in November.

The plain-English wording on this page is assembled directly from the task statements and the published ratings, not written by hand for this occupation. That is why it is specific, and it is also why we say so.

The routes and free resources further up are today’s, not the release’s (last reviewed 2026-08-05). A route is an offer, not a historical fact, so it moves on its own clock.

How we score a job Download this release Look up another job

Using these figures?

Cite this

Everything on this site is published under CC BY 4.0. Quote it, chart it, sell something built on it. Just say where it came from, and cite the dated release rather than the site, so the figure you quote stays checkable.

Plain text

Collab365 (2026). Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1 (methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0). https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1. Licensed CC BY 4.0. Built with O*NET data (USDOL/ETA, CC BY 4.0); ONS data (Open Government Licence v3.0); GAISI task framework (arXiv:2507.22748, MIT); BLS data (public domain).

BibTeX

@misc{collab365futureproof2026q41,
  title        = {Collab365 Futureproof: task-level AI exposure for US and UK occupations, release 2026-q4.1},
  author       = {{Collab365}},
  year         = {2026},
  url          = {https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1},
  note         = {Release 2026-q4.1, methodVersion 2.0.0, promptVersion task_scoring_v1.0, CC BY 4.0}
}

Permalink

https://futureproof.collab365.com/data/2026-q4.1

Data as of release 2026-q4.1, published 2026-08-05. Releases never change after publication; when the figures move, a new dated release is published beside this one and this one stays exactly where it is.