Law firm terms and conditions often describe how the practice worked when the document was last rewritten. The difficulty is that technology, client behaviour and regulatory expectations do not wait for the next wholesale review.
The September 2026 CLIENTCAREmonitor update identifies five areas in which older client care terms may no longer define the retainer or the associated risks clearly enough. They concern AI assisted recording and transcription, responsibility for survey reports, electronic bills and transfers from client money, clients using external AI systems, and the status of preliminary advice.
Each subject raises a different legal and operational issue. Together, they demonstrate why client care terms should be treated as a living risk management document rather than standard wording issued at file opening and forgotten.
This complements the earlier article asking whether a firm’s CQS Client Care Policy is still compliant. The policy explains how the firm intends to manage client care. The retainer and terms must then tell the client, with sufficient clarity, what has been agreed.
1. AI assisted recording and transcription
Meetings, telephone calls and video conferences can now be recorded or transcribed with very little friction. AI tools may also produce attendance notes, summaries and suggested actions. The apparent convenience can disguise important questions about confidentiality, data protection, accuracy, retention and access.
Client care terms should not imply that every interaction will be recorded. They should explain that the firm may use recording or transcription where lawful and appropriate, identify the legitimate purposes for which the material may be used and direct the client to the relevant privacy information.
The wording must also match practice. Before introducing it, the firm should know which systems are approved, where recordings and transcripts are stored, whether the provider uses submitted information to develop its systems, who can access the material and how long it will be retained.
A clause cannot cure an insecure process. Its purpose is to provide transparency around a controlled process that the firm has already assessed.
2. Receiving a survey does not automatically expand the retainer
A client may send the conveyancer a survey or valuation and assume that the lawyer will identify and explain every point within it. That assumption can create a dangerous gap between what the client believes has been reviewed and what the solicitor has actually agreed to do.
Conveyancers advise on legal matters affecting the property. They do not ordinarily undertake a physical inspection, assess structural condition, value the property or advise on the suitability of a mortgage. Even where a survey report is supplied, the firm’s role should not silently expand to matters requiring a surveyor, valuer, accountant or other specialist.
The terms should distinguish those professional roles while preserving the firm’s obligation to deal with legal matters expressly referred for investigation. If, for example, a survey identifies an extension without apparent consent, the physical condition of the extension may be for the surveyor, while the planning, building regulations and title implications may require legal investigation.
This boundary is part of effective expectation management. The earlier article Managing Expectations: The Secret to a Smooth Move explains why clear scope and exclusions can prevent complaints arising from a mismatch between assumption and service.
3. Electronic bills and payment from client money
Electronic delivery is routine, but the terms should explain where bills will be sent and what the client must do if another person within an organisation is responsible for payment. Firms should also accommodate any particular delivery requirements that have been agreed.
A separate issue arises when the firm holds client money and intends to apply part of it towards its costs. The process must reflect rule 4.3 of the SRA Accounts Rules. The client must first receive a bill or other written notification of the costs, and any transfer should be confined to the specific sum identified for the relevant matter.
The terms can explain the agreed basis, but the accounts process still has to work correctly on each file. The firm should be able to demonstrate:
- when the bill or written notification was delivered;
- the precise sum notified to the client;
- that sufficient money was held for the relevant client and matter;
- that the amount transferred did not exceed the notified sum; and
- who authorised and completed the transfer.
Clear wording supports the process. It does not replace the transaction level evidence.
4. What happens when the client uploads legal advice to AI?
Law firms are concentrating, understandably, on how their own staff use AI. There is a second risk at the other end of the retainer. A client may paste a legal opinion, contract, report on title, correspondence or confidential matter information into a public chatbot and ask it to summarise or challenge the advice.
That action may disclose confidential or privileged material to a third party, allow the information to be retained or reused outside the firm’s control and produce an answer that is inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. The resulting output has not become the firm’s advice simply because it was generated from a document prepared by the firm.
Modern client care terms should warn clients not to submit confidential, privileged or sensitive matter information to an external AI system without first discussing it with the firm. They should also explain that external AI output has not been reviewed or approved by the solicitor unless the firm expressly confirms otherwise.
This is the client facing counterpart to the professional accountability issues discussed in The AML Accountability Gap: Why Explainability Is the New Standard. Whether AI is used by the firm or by the client, confident output is not the same as verified legal analysis.
5. Preliminary discussion is not necessarily final advice
An initial consultation can move quickly from a general discussion to a view that the prospective client later treats as definitive advice. A similar problem can arise when the firm circulates an early draft before receiving complete instructions or the relevant documents.
The terms should distinguish preliminary guidance from final advice given under an agreed retainer. They should make clear that an early view may change materially when further facts or documents become available and should not be relied upon unless the firm confirms that it is final advice intended for the stated purpose.
This does not permit a firm to relabel substantive advice after the event. Staff conduct must remain consistent with the wording. Engagement procedures, email templates and attendance notes should make the status of the discussion or document clear at the time it is provided.
The real issue is change control
The five subjects are not isolated drafting points. They reveal how quickly gaps can develop between a firm’s written terms and its actual service.
A practical review should ask:
- Does the clause describe what the firm genuinely does?
- Is the wording consistent with the client care letter, privacy notice and internal policies?
- Have accounts, compliance, IT and fee earning teams approved the relevant process?
- Will staff know when the clause applies and what action it requires?
- Can the firm evidence when the wording changed, why it changed and who approved it?
The 2024 guide to what belongs in a CQS Client Care Policy provides useful background. However, the passage of time is itself the reason for reviewing both the policy and the client facing documentation against current risks.
Keep your client care terms under review
The CLIENTCAREmonitor Terms and Conditions Notification Service provides regular notifications of new and relevant paragraphs for firms to consider and adapt while retaining their existing process for producing client care terms.
Do not wait for the complaint to expose the gap
A well drafted clause cannot eliminate every dispute. It can define the service, expose an operational weakness before it causes harm and give the client a fair explanation of how the relationship will work.
The September developments show that the most important client care risks do not always arrive through a single new statute or headline judgment. They often emerge gradually as technology and working practices change. That is precisely why the review of client care terms must be continuous.
This article summarises general risk management themes arising from the September 2026 notification. It does not reproduce the notification wording and is not legal or regulatory advice. Each firm should review any proposed clause against its own services, procedures, privacy documentation and regulatory obligations before adoption.