AI role guides for paralegals and legal administrators

by Hamza Suleman

Define permitted use, review, escalation and competence evidence. Use it when paralegals are using or testing AI but role limits and review are unclear, or when administrators are asked to improve work without a defined mandate.

Boundary: role design does not replace professional judgment, competence or supervision duties.

Operational guidance, not legal advice. No confidential information is needed. Original PDF editions (both v1, 18 Aug 2026, now combined into this single maintained page): AI Role Guide for Paralegals and Legal Administrators and AI Operations.

1. Frame the decision

Separate operation, legal review, workflow ownership and stop authority. Each needs a real person and observable action.

Specific focus - pick the line that matches your situation:

• Paralegals: separate safe operation from qualified legal approval and make escalation practical.
• Administrators: give administrators process ownership while keeping specialist approvals with responsible people.

Questions to answer:

• Who may submit material?
• Who checks legal judgment?
• Who owns access and incidents?
• Who may stop use?

Avoid:

• assigning responsibility to the team
• using seniority instead of a defined check
• assuming a supplier supervises use

2. Control sheet

Treat a blank evidence field as a reason to pause, not a reason to guess. Record sources and owners before changing the workflow.

Fail closed: if an input, owner or approval is missing, record the gap and keep the affected step outside the proposed change.

3. Working record

Complete this page with counts, dates and named sources. Do not include client names, matter names, contract text or privileged material.

Evidence quality check:

• The source is named and dated.
• An estimate is labelled as an estimate.
• The owner can reproduce the measure.
• The same method can be used after a change.

4. Decision record

Select the outcome that the evidence supports. A stop or no-change decision is valid.

• Stop: a required source, owner or approval is missing.
• Fix: repair the underlying route before adding technology or cost.
• Test: run one bounded change with a baseline and review date.
• Proceed: adopt only the option supported by the recorded evidence.

Related pages: the AI roles and supervision guide (/resources/ai-roles-supervision-guide/), the SRA's AI warning notice, the context-aware AI boundary guide (/resources/context-aware-ai-for-lawyers/) and the guides hub (/law-firm-guides/). Questions: hello@margolegal.com.

Primary sources

• SRA - Effective supervision: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/effective-supervision-guidance/
• SRA - Compliance tips for solicitors on AI and technology: https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/resources/innovate/compliance-tips-for-solicitors/
• Law Society - How to use lawtech in your practice: https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/Topics/AI-and-lawtech/Practice-notes/How-to-use-lawtech-in-your-practice
• SRA - Code of Conduct for Firms (confidentiality of client information, para 6.3): https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-firms/

Source status: links checked 15 September 2026 (all three SRA pages verified live 200; the Law Society page blocks automated fetch with 403 but is indexed - manual browser check requested before publish). Confirm the current version and obtain appropriate professional advice before relying on regulated, contractual, privacy, security, insurance, financial or wellbeing conclusions.

MARGO LEGAL LTD, company number 17322603. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office: 66 Paul Street, London, England, EC2A 4NA. Originally published as two PDF guides (v1, 18 August 2026); consolidated and converted to HTML 15 September 2026.