The standard, by Chris Dias
Every firm that wants to sound modern now calls itself AI-native, and almost none of them say what would have to be true for the claim to hold. Here is our test, and an honest account of where this firm passes it and where it does not.
A label is only worth something if it can be failed. Solicitor means something because it can be taken away. AI-native, as the market uses it, cannot be failed by anyone, which is why it has spread so fast and why it tells you so little about who is doing your work.
The version of the claim that I think is wrong is the one where the machine supposedly takes everything. It cannot, and nobody's can. Law is not a finite set of tasks; it is the infinite variety of human dispute arriving in a different shape every time, and any honest system has a point where it must stop and hand the matter to a person. Escalation is not the gap in an AI-native practice. It is the mechanism. The question worth asking a firm is not whether it escalates, but whether it can tell you when it did, to whom, and why.
The test
Not that the machine attempts everything, but that it is the default rather than a feature kept for simple matters, and that a firm routing the hard end to human-only tracks or to co-counsel says so to the client. Met in immigration; not yet in family and employment.
Defined points where the machine must stop and route the matter to a named person, recorded when they fire rather than absorbed quietly into somebody's inbox. Met wherever we use AI.
On every AI-assisted output, through Countersigned. It is the only honest answer, months later, to the question of what the machine did and what the solicitor did. Met.
Not a team, not a platform: a person on the roll whose name is on the outcome and who answers for it to you, to the SRA and to the court. Met.
The 10 Non-Negotiables, which we were the first UK firm to sign, and our published AI tool risk assessment. Knowing when to keep a matter away from the machine is part of the design. Met.
Not "are you AI-native", which nobody can answer usefully, but "on my matter, what did the machine do, where did it stop, who did it go to, and can I see the record". We can answer that in a sentence.
The obvious question
Because the marks have definitions that are not ours to move. Under the NativeLaw scheme, AI-Hybrid is self-declared: a regulated firm using AI under supervision, with a named solicitor signing every AI-assisted output, a record of who signed and when, and a named person responsible for the firm's AI use. That is what we declared on 6 September 2026, reference NLH-20260906-A29FE2. AI-Native is the monitored mark, across every matter type, and the infrastructure that does the monitoring is still pre-launch, so it is not yet available to this firm or to any other.
Two smaller reasons sit behind that. The profession has not settled on what AI-native means, so a firm claiming the word today is claiming it against half a dozen definitions at once. And we are still building. None of which stops what is already true from being true: in immigration, this firm runs the way the standard describes, and the record exists to prove it.
What this means if you instruct us
Fees are fixed because the first pass costs us less than it used to, not because we have thinned the checking. You are paying for the supervision and the signature.
Assembly and drafting in hours rather than days. The parts that need judgement take as long as judgement takes, and we will not pretend otherwise to win the instruction.
There is a record on every AI-assisted matter showing what was produced, checked, changed and signed. Ask, and you can see it.
A named solicitor carries the liability, and the firm carries professional indemnity insurance on the terms the SRA requires. How the work is produced changes nothing about who is accountable.
The longer argument, including what it means to profess and why that marks the line, is in our thesis and at professed.ai. The supervision process is Countersigned, the marks are published by NativeLaw, and our declaration is a matter of public record. If you run a firm and think these five conditions are wrong, publish yours.
Book a consultation with a named solicitor. Call +44 (0)20 3576 1275 or email info@lawyery.co.
Book a consultation
lawyery