AI is now built into how decisions get made, content gets produced, and services get delivered — often before anyone has worked out who is responsible for what it produces, what data it was trained on, or what happens when it gets something wrong.

Most organisations are not asking these questions out of carelessness. They adopted tools quickly because the alternative was falling behind, or they are selling AI-enabled products because that is what the market now expects. The legal questions get parked until something forces the issue — a contract dispute, a regulator’s letter, or a client’s due diligence request.

The AI-related legal work I do is for organisations using AI, building AI-enabled products, or buying AI-enabled services — at any stage, across any sector.

What this covers:

• AI procurement and contracts — buying or selling AI tools and AI-enabled services. Reviewed, drafted, or negotiated, with particular attention to liability for AI outputs, data rights, and what happens if the tool changes or is withdrawn.
• AI governance and internal policies — acceptable use policies, oversight and sign-off processes, and practical guidance for staff using AI tools day to day.
• IP and AI — who owns the output of an AI-assisted process, and what rights you actually hold in AI-generated content, code, or designs. Often less straightforward than it looks.
• Data protection and AI — personal data in training data, inputs and outputs; DPIAs for AI systems; what your privacy notice and records of processing need to say, using AI for automated decision making.
• Regulatory exposure — there is no UK AI Act, but the EU AI Act has extraterritorial reach. UK organisations placing AI on the EU market, or whose AI affects people in the EU, may be in scope regardless of where they are based.

The output is practical: advice and documents you can use, not hedged opinions or generic policy templates.

Fixed fees, agreed before the work starts.