Technology has transformed how barristers work – sometimes by design, sometimes by necessity.
The Bar Standards Board’s recently commissioned Technology and Innovation Report reviews progress at a pivotal moment in the digital journey of the Bar of England and Wales. The report notes that the Bar has been through seismic technological shifts – from floppy disks to AI-assisted research – which it has embraced with impressive enthusiasm. The report reviews barristers’ varied experiences, and takes stock of how 14,000 independent practitioners are currently navigating the collective digital transformation.
How Lockdown Dragged the Bar Into The Digital Age
Clearly, the sudden arrival of COVID-19 had a dramatic change on the use of IT at the Bar. Suddenly barristers found themselves attending lectures on the etiquette of virtual meetings, and hoping they might never become a cat avatar. The BSB research confirms what many experienced firsthand: nothing accelerates technological adoption quite like absolute necessity. COVID-19 didn’t allow the Bar time to plan its modernisation – it pushed the profession headlong into digital transformation.
The widespread adoption of video conferencing stands out as perhaps the most transformative change. Remote hearings became a necessity rather than a luxury, compelling even the most technologically hesitant members of the profession to embrace platforms like Microsoft Teams and Zoom.
The research reveals widely acknowledged benefits: reduced travel time, easier international work, better client relationships, and significant cost savings. For many cases, particularly procedural hearings and case management conferences, the efficiency gains have been substantial.
However, the report also captures nuanced perspectives on when technology should complement rather than replace traditional approaches. Several barristers expressed reservations about remote hearings for witness examination or when establishing truth through cross-examination. Others noted how some clients appeared less engaged in proceedings when participating from their sofas rather than experiencing the gravitas of a physical courtroom.
The pandemic may have accelerated the profession’s digital transformation by necessity, but the research suggests the Bar is now entering a more thoughtful phase of determining which technological advances to retain permanently and which traditional practices remain superior in certain contexts.
The challenges for self-employed practitioners
One of the key challenges is the way that sets of Chambers are structured: groupings of self-employed practitioners operating under one roof. The BSB report articulates the fundamental tension – the Bar is profession of autonomous independent practitioners, who nonetheless increasingly need to embrace centralisation in technology deployment.
This is not as straightforward as it sounds. For example, some barristers prefer working with hard copy court bundles to any of the electronic options, whereas others claim to hardly use paper any more. Some barristers now operate from a range of ipads, while others remain steadfastly loyal to their Windows laptops and PDF annotation software. At the core of the self-employment model is the notion of independence – the freedom to craft work patterns that suit barristers’ personal preferences.
It was observed that the court service and judges are not currently driving change, and that judges also seem to have individual preferences as to how their courts are run, and in what format they wish to receive information, despite the efforts being made to streamline court practices. In short, barristers are operating in a fragmented ecosystem with multiple platforms and software providers.
Despite these differences, barristers are now having to engage with increasingly centralised IT, for example centralised systems relating to legal knowledge, virtual hearings, diary management, client onboarding, billing systems and EDI monitoring.
Why Tech Companies Overlook Barristers
The BSB report also validates a frustration many have long experienced – solicitors in large law firms appear to have much better access to an ocean of purpose-built legal tech.
This is of course partly because law firms have much larger workforces, and have centralised, well-resourced in-house IT expertise.
However, several respondents to the survey noted that technology companies simply don’t view the Bar as an attractive market. This leaves many reliant upon generic technology solutions rather than benefiting from tools designed with the particular needs of the profession in mind. The research noted the widespread use of applications such PDF editors (Adobe, Foxit, LiquidText), cloud storage (Dropbox, OneDrive, SharePoint), and video conferencing platforms, but fewer respondents mentioned legal technology specifically designed for barristers.
The report does highlight some promising examples, including case management systems like LEX and MLC, as well as document-focused tools like Hyperlaw, Associo, and Casedo. However, many chambers reported dissatisfaction with existing case management options, describing them as “basic” and lacking integration with other systems.
The report concludes that the technological gap represents both a challenge and an opportunity for the Bar. While the Bar may lack the purchasing power of large law firms, the very independence and innovation that characterises the Bar could potentially allow more agile adoption of technology if the right solutions were available.
When ChatGPT Meets Centuries Of Legal Tradition
Artificial intelligence has undeniably arrived at the Bar. The BSB research offers fascinating insights into how barristers are tentatively incorporating these powerful tools without abandoning the human judgment that clients ultimately pay for.
Several barristers reported already using AI tools like Microsoft Co-Pilot, ChatGPT, and Vincent AI for tasks such as document preparation, transcription, and note-taking. Lexis+ AI was mentioned for legal research. However, most viewed these tools as assistants rather than replacements, mindful no doubt of recent high-profile A1 disasters in the courtroom.
The structure of barristers’ practices creates unique challenges for AI adoption, according to the research. Some barristers noted that chambers don’t have the massive datasets that law firms possess, making it harder to train large language models on barrister-specific work. The individual and autonomous nature of barristers’ workflows doesn’t easily lend itself to data aggregation or the commoditised processes where AI typically excels. Nevertheless, participants recognised AI’s potential to handle more routine tasks, allowing barristers to focus on fee-earning work requiring professional judgment and advocacy skills.
Several participants expressed interest in training on AI tools, particularly around effective prompt engineering. This suggests that while barristers remain cautious about AI, many are open to thoughtfully incorporating these tools into their practice where appropriate.
The BSB report provides a valuable survey and guidance without prescribing rigid solutions. The recommendations prioritise greater collaboration and standardisation, where beneficial, and include suggested strategies for the increased adoption of technology, for example the setting up of a centralised framework providing support and ideas for individual sets of Chambers.
The report reinforces the impression that the Bar is in a constant and necessary state of technological innovation, which is vital to ensuring it remains viable and competitive in the modern world.