Will AI replace Solicitors and lawyers?

Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 55 official task statements scored for Solicitors and lawyers (United Kingdom, SOC 2412), 25% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 39 out of 100 (range 34–45, 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 “Solicitors and lawyers” can AI already do?

The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Write reports on changes in legal regulations” (88/100, very high); “Manage legal files and utilise client case management and accounting systems” (81/100, very high); “Search for and examine public and legal records to establish ownership” (81/100, very 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 “Solicitors and lawyers” stay human?

About 48% 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” (1/100, minimal); “Present cases to the judge and jury” (1/100, minimal); “Select jurors for trial proceedings” (2/100, 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 “Solicitors and lawyers” do about AI?

Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 25% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 48% 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 Solicitors and lawyers 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 55 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

Solicitors and lawyers

guiding clients on business transactions, preparing legal briefs for court cases to address business issues and managing and advancing legal cases and transactions according to legal protocols. 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: 27%
staying human: 48%

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

Whole-job exposure score 39 out of 100 (34–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, across 55 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 solicitors and lawyers 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 2026-08-04. Read the full method.

That slice is not coming back; the core of the job, presenting legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case, stays yours. The tools change hands, the accountability doesn't.

Your week, as this page understands it

Solicitors advise and act on behalf of individuals, organisations, businesses and government departments in legal matters. The job title says “solicitors” or “lawyers”: officially one job, two names. The real job is the part underneath: presenting legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case. 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 solicitors and lawyers is not one task. It is 55 scored ones, and they are nowhere near equally exposed. The most durable of them, on this evidence, is presenting legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case, and the ledger below shows exactly why.

Where the work sits, by task weight

shifting to AI: 25%
changing shape: 27%
staying human: 48%

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 2026-08-04. 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.
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

12 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.

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 85 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
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: Finding and comparing precedents is search and summarising work over fully published material.
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.
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 90 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
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 the solicitor 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.
Researching legal records and case law
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 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
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, with the solicitor checking 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.
Reviewing legal documents for accuracy and compliance with relevant laws
This is reading one thing and writing another: legal documents in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 75 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Review legal documents for accuracy and compliance with relevant laws.” (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: Checking documents against the relevant law is close reading over fully published material.
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.

Changing shape

19 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 90 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Draft legal arguments for court cases.” (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: Legal arguments can be drafted well from the papers and case law, but a qualified lawyer shapes and owns them.
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.
Determining case ramifications by studying the Constitution
The software now makes the first pass at case ramifications, 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 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
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: 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: Working out what a case means across statutes and rulings needs a lawyer's judgement on the result.
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.
Reviewing legal data to assess the advisability of defending or prosecuting a lawsuit
The software now makes the first pass at legal data, 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 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Review legal data to assess the advisability of defending or prosecuting a lawsuit.” (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: The evidence can be analysed automatically, but advising whether to sue is a lawyer's regulated call.
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.

Staying human

24 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.

Presenting legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case
This work happens in the physical world: legal arguments, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Present legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 2 out of 100 (0–6 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 legally the act of a qualified lawyer, performed in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · 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
This work happens in the physical world: cross-examine witnesses, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Examine and cross-examine witnesses to gather evidence in legal proceedings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 2 out of 100 (0–6 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 a witness in a hearing is an act only a qualified advocate can carry out, live in the room.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · 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
This work happens in the physical world: cases, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 90 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Present cases to the judge and jury.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 1 out of 100 (0–5 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: Presenting a case to a judge and jury is reserved to a qualified advocate standing in court.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.

Show the other 45 tasks

Writing reports on changes in legal regulations
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: reports in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 60 · 2412/01
Source: “Write reports on changes in legal regulations.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 88 out of 100 (84–92 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: Regulatory changes are published in full, so clear write-ups can be produced to a usable standard.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
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 70 · 2412/01, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Manage legal files and utilise client case management and accounting systems.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 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: Running case files and practice accounting systems is structured administration software already handles.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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 · 2412/01, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Search for and examine public and legal records to establish ownership.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 81 out of 100 (77–85 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: Searching public and legal records for ownership is online search work software does quickly.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 4/4 · 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.
Researching and analysing documents and case law to ensure the accuracy of advice and procedure
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: documents in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2412/01
Source: “Research and analyse documents and case law to ensure the accuracy of advice and procedure.” (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 and legislation are published in full, so research and analysis can be drafted 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 4/4.
Conducting detailed research on specific legal matters to support case preparation and advice
shifting to AI
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 85 · 2412/04
Source: “Conduct detailed research on specific legal matters to support case preparation and advice.” (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: Legal research over published statutes and rulings is search and summarising at 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 4/4.
Managing contracts to ensure compliance with agreements
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: contracts in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 90 · 2412/01
Source: “Manage contracts to ensure compliance with agreements.” (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 obligations and deadlines across contracts is document work software does well.
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.
Calculating financial claims for specific damages
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: financial claims in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 70 · 2412/01
Source: “Calculate financial claims for specific damages, compensation, and maintenance costs.” (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: Working out damages, compensation and costs is structured calculation from the case papers.
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.
Drafting and finalising legal documents
shifting to AI
This is reading one thing and writing another: legal documents in, a record out. That is the shape today's tools are built for.
importance 80 · 2412/01, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Draft and finalise legal documents, including wills and contracts, for clients.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 62 out of 100 (58–66 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; someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Wills and contracts follow well-established forms, so strong drafts can be produced and then settled by a solicitor.
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 4/4.
Drafting and interpreting regulations for legal compliance and case preparation
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at regulations, 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 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03
Source: “Draft and interpret regulations for legal compliance and case preparation.” (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: Drafting and reading regulations follows established forms, but a qualified lawyer stands behind the wording.
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 briefs for court cases to address business issues
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at legal briefs, 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 · 2412/01
Source: “Prepare legal briefs for court cases to address business issues.” (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: Briefs follow established structures and can be drafted from the file, with a lawyer settling them.
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.
Checking all documentation thoroughly before signing and implementing
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at all documentation thoroughly, 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 · 2412/01
Source: “Check all documentation thoroughly before signing and implementing.” (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: Documents can be checked thoroughly by software, but signing them off is a qualified person's 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 75 · 2412/01
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 the solicitor'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.
Preparing legal briefs for court cases to defend clients
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at legal briefs, 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 · 2412/02
Source: “Prepare legal briefs for court cases to defend clients.” (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: Defence briefs follow established structures and can be drafted from the case file.
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 interpreting regulations for property law
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at regulations, 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 90 · 2412/04
Source: “Draft and interpret regulations for property law.” (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: Property regulations are published, so drafting and interpreting them can be done 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 2/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 0/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing legal briefs for court cases to manage property transactions
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at legal briefs, 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 90 · 2412/04
Source: “Prepare legal briefs for court cases to manage property transactions.” (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: Property briefs follow set forms and can be drafted from the transaction papers.
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.
Drawing up wills
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at wills, 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 70 · 2412/01, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Draw up wills.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 53 out of 100 (46–60 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: Will drafting follows well-known forms, so strong drafts are possible, but a solicitor settles and takes 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 1/4 · how much data exists 4/4.
Researching and drafting legal documents for property transactions
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 90 · 2412/04
Source: “Research and draft legal documents for property transactions.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 52 out of 100 (45–59 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: Conveyancing documents follow standard forms, but preparing them is a regulated activity.
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 4/4.
Drafting documents tailored to the client's individual needs
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at 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 · 2412/01
Source: “Draft documents tailored to the client's individual needs.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (44–52 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: Tailored documents start from established precedents, so good drafts can be produced and then settled.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Instructing barristers to act for clients in legal matters
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at barristers, 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 70 · 2412/01
Source: “Instruct barristers to act for clients in legal matters.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 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: Instructions to counsel follow a standard shape and can be drafted from the file.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Accepting referrals from other solicitor firms in case of conflict of interest or lack of specialists
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at referrals, 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 50 · 2412/01
Source: “Accept referrals from other solicitor firms in case of conflict of interest or lack of specialists.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 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: Conflict checks and referral decisions run on file data, though a partner takes the decision.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Preparing legal briefs for court cases to resolve family disputes
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at legal briefs, 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 90 · 2412/03
Source: “Prepare legal briefs for court cases to resolve family disputes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 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: Family case briefs can be drafted from the file, though the sensitivities are settled by a solicitor.
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 1/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Managing and advancing legal cases and transactions according to legal protocols
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at legal cases, 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 · 2412/04
Source: “Manage and advance legal cases and transactions according to legal protocols.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 48 out of 100 (41–55 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: Case progression follows set steps and deadlines that software can drive, with a solicitor deciding.
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 1/4 · 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 · 2412/01, 2412/02
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: Appeal papers can be drafted from the file, but conducting the litigation is a regulated act.
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.
Recording and clarifying a client's instructions for specific actions or projects
changing shape
The software now makes the first pass at a client's instructions, but the part that matters is a person saying it and standing behind it. So the job becomes checking and deciding rather than producing.
importance 60 · 2412/01
Source: “Record and clarify a client's instructions for specific actions or projects.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 46 out of 100 (39–53 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; the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Capturing and tidying a client's instructions is note-taking software does well, though the conversation is human.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Corresponding with clients and opposing solicitors
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 60 · 2412/01
Source: “Correspond with clients and opposing solicitors.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 39 out of 100 (32–46 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Routine correspondence can be drafted well, but a solicitor owns what goes out in their name.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Exercising judgement to develop effective case presentation theories
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for judgement, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Exercise judgement to develop effective case presentation theories.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Working out how to present a case is judgement built on experience of what persuades in practice.
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 2/4.
Establishing enforcement procedures
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for enforcement procedures, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 75 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Establish enforcement procedures.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 38 out of 100 (31–45 allowing for uncertainty): low exposure, medium confidence.
Why it sits in this group: someone qualified has to answer for it.
The rating behind it: Setting up enforcement procedures needs legal judgement about what will actually hold.
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 2/4.
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 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
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: 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: Settling the legal basis for proceedings is a judgement checked between qualified specialists.
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.
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 95 · 2412/01, 2412/04
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 solicitor 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.
Providing advice to a variety of clients
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for advice, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 60 · 2412/04
Source: “Provide advice to a variety of clients.” (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: Advice varies hugely by client, and a solicitor's name and insurance stand behind what is said.
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.
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 · 2412/01
Source: “Provide legal advice to clients on specific matters.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 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: Advising a client on their own matter is a regulated act a qualified solicitor is answerable for.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Providing legal advice on prosecuting or defending legal cases
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for legal advice, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Provide legal advice on prosecuting or defending legal cases.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 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: Advising whether to prosecute or defend is a regulated judgement a qualified lawyer carries.
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 2/4 · 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 70 · 2412/04
Source: “Provide advice to clients on probate activities and estate administration.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 25 out of 100 (18–32 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: Probate advice is a regulated activity a qualified person is answerable for.
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 2/4 · how much data exists 3/4.
Interviewing clients to assess the firm's suitability to provide specialised advice and services based on cost
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles clients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 2412/01
Source: “Interview clients to assess the firm's suitability to provide specialised advice and services based on cost.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 24 out of 100 (17–31 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: Deciding whether the firm can take a matter turns on a first conversation with the client.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Liaising with solicitors and other legal professionals to negotiate the terms of a claim
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for solicitors, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 80 · 2412/01
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: 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 value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: Negotiating claim terms between solicitors depends on judgement and standing built in live dealings.
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 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 80 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Negotiate settlements for specific civil disputes.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 17 out of 100 (10–24 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: Settling a dispute rests on a qualified lawyer reading the other side in real negotiation.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Negotiating with clients and other professionals to secure agreed objectives
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles clients and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 70 · 2412/01
Source: “Negotiate with clients and other professionals to secure agreed objectives.” (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: Negotiation is live give-and-take where the solicitor must be able to commit on the client's behalf.
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.
Holding client meetings to discuss legal strategies
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 · 2412/01
Source: “Hold client meetings to discuss legal strategies.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 15 out of 100 (8–22 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: Strategy meetings turn on trust between client and solicitor built face to face.
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 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Establishing and maintaining effective and professional relationships with clients and other stakeholders
staying human
The value here is that a specific person handles effective and stands behind it. That is earned, not computed.
importance 60 · 2412/04
Source: “Establish and maintain effective and professional relationships with clients and other stakeholders.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 13 out of 100 (9–17 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, high confidence.
Why it sits in this group: the value is that a specific person does it.
The rating behind it: A professional relationship with a client is built by a person over time and cannot be handed over.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 0/4 · needs an accountable person 0/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 4/4 · 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 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
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: Meetings with claimants and experts work because a person they trust is across the table.
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.
Interviewing clients and witnesses
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for clients, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 85 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Interview clients and witnesses.” (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: Clients and witnesses open up to a person they trust, sitting with them.
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.
Serving as an agent for businesses or individuals
staying human
The rules require a named, qualified person to answer for an agent, and that person cannot be a piece of software.
importance 50 · 2412/04
Source: “Serve as an agent for businesses or individuals.” (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: Acting as someone's agent means a person taking responsibility on their behalf.
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.
Representing clients in tribunals
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: clients, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 80 · 2412/01
Source: “Represent clients in tribunals.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 3 out of 100 (0–10 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, medium 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: Tribunal advocacy is done by a person in the hearing room speaking for the client.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 3/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 3/4 · how much data exists 2/4.
Selecting jurors for trial proceedings
staying human
This work happens in the physical world: jurors, in a real place. Software cannot follow it there.
importance 70 · 2412/02, 2412/03
Source: “Select jurors for trial proceedings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 2 out of 100 (0–14 allowing for uncertainty): minimal exposure, low 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: Jury selection happens in the courtroom and is part of a qualified advocate's role.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 1/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · needs an accountable person 4/4 · needs to be trusted in the moment 2/4 · how much data exists 1/4.
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 85 · 2412/01, 2412/02, 2412/03, 2412/04
Source: “Represent clients in court proceedings.” (UK task statement)
How this row was scored
Exposure score: 1 out of 100 (0–5 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: Representing a client in court is reserved to a qualified lawyer appearing in person.
The five ratings: output a model can produce 0/4 · needs a body in a room 3/4 · 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: £57,000a 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: 216,100in 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: legal arguments 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; presenting legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case is not.

So, given all that: 25% of this job's task weight sits in rows the software is already learning, 27% in rows that change shape rather than disappear, and 48% in rows it is nowhere near. That is the position, measured across 55 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 (presenting legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case) 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 presenting legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case, 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, and why I am not sending you down them

I looked at the obvious moves out of this job, and here is what I found.

I checked the 12 nearest UK occupations to solicitors and lawyers (nearest by the work that AI is not taking, not by job title), and none of them survived. The closest was barristers and judges: only about 19% of its durable work is work you already do, it pays 10.6% less and there are far fewer of those jobs than of yours. And on the numbers you do not need one. This job scores 39/100 here, with only 25% of the task list in the top band, and “guide clients on business transactions” is not work that hands over cleanly. None of them beats deepening what you already have.

How that was checked: this job was compared against all 412 UK occupations in this release on their official task statements, and the 12 nearest were examined one by one. A move that turns on an industry, an employer or a qualification rather than on the work itself will not show up in a check like that. And this release carries no licence register, so anything you are weighing needs that looked up separately.

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.

Barristers and judges
Why it looked obvious: It came up as a near neighbour because one of your tasks is on their list in the same words: “present legal arguments in court to advocate for a client's case”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 19% of the work in that job the software is not taking.
Why I am not recommending it: You would be starting most of it from nothing: about 19% of the durable work in that job is work you do today, and the rest you would be learning while the bills carried on. It is a pay cut, in those words: £50,915 against your £56,977, 10.6% less (ASHE Table 14.7a, 2025 provisional (both)). Retraining to earn less is a decision, not advice. And it is a narrow door: about 39,400 of those jobs against 216,100 of yours (ONS via Nomis), 18% as many seats.
Look at that job’s page anyway →
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 £56,977, 37.7% 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: “interview clients and witnesses”. Across the whole of both lists that adds up to about 4% 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 4% 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 £56,977, 39.2% 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 55 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

In US official statistics this job is counted as Lawyers. Pay and employment stay on this page’s own group; the task list and the scores do not cross over.

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 solicitors / lawyers, 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 solicitors / lawyers. 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.

Noted, and thank you. We’ll email you if a Space for solicitors / lawyers 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 solicitors / lawyers 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 solicitors / lawyers 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 solicitors / lawyers 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 Solicitors and lawyers?: Not as a job, but it is already doing parts of the work. Across the 55 official task statements scored for Solicitors and lawyers (United Kingdom, SOC 2412), 25% of the importance-weighted core work is made of tasks today's AI could already do most of. The overall exposure score is 39 out of 100 (range 34–45, 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 “Solicitors and lawyers” can AI already do?: The highest-scoring tasks in release 2026-q4.1 are: “Write reports on changes in legal regulations” (88/100, very high); “Manage legal files and utilise client case management and accounting systems” (81/100, very high); “Search for and examine public and legal records to establish ownership” (81/100, very 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 “Solicitors and lawyers” stay human?: About 48% 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” (1/100, minimal); “Present cases to the judge and jury” (1/100, minimal); “Select jurors for trial proceedings” (2/100, 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 “Solicitors and lawyers” do about AI?: Start from the ledger rather than the headline: 25% of this job's weighted core work is exposed, and roughly 48% 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 Solicitors and lawyers 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 55 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.
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.