This week, the legal AI landscape was defined by escalating copyright battles and government intervention: the US DOJ made its first-ever filing backing AI fair use in training data cases, a watershed moment for IP law globally. Simultaneously, new UK and EU data reveal a profession in rapid AI dependency — with regulation racing to keep up. The conversation has shifted from ‘should we use AI?’ to ‘who bears the legal risk when we do?’
Top story: The US DOJ formally sided with OpenAI in the NYT copyright case, declaring AI training on copyrighted works to be fair use — the first-ever US government position on AI copyright litigation.
DOJ Backs OpenAI, Declares AI Training ‘Fair Use’ in NYT Case
gHacks Tech News · Legal
The US Department of Justice filed a brief in Manhattan federal court on 2 September 2026, arguing that training large language models on copyrighted text qualifies as fair use under US law — the first time the federal government has formally stated a position in the wave of AI copyright lawsuits. The filing covers the entire consolidated MDL encompassing suits from the New York Times, other publishers, authors, and news outlets against OpenAI and Microsoft. For legal practitioners, the DOJ’s intervention effectively signals that copyright holders seeking compensation for AI training data may need to pursue legislative remedies rather than court victories — a major strategic recalibration for IP and media law teams.
15% of UK Lawyers Now ‘Dependent’ on AI, LexisNexis Survey Finds
Artificial Lawyer · Strategy
A new LexisNexis survey of UK law firms has found that 15% of lawyers at large firms now describe themselves as dependent on AI to do their job, while a parallel survey of over 3,200 members of the public found that one in four 18–24-year-olds have turned to AI for their legal needs. The dual findings point to a structural shift: AI dependency is rising among professionals at the same time as consumers increasingly bypass lawyers entirely for routine legal queries. For UK law firms, this creates both a productivity opportunity and a competitive threat from direct-to-consumer AI legal tools.
EU AI Act Now Fully in Force — with Key High-Risk Delays for Courts
Al Jazeera · Regulation
The EU AI Act became fully applicable on 2 August 2026, but a deal agreed under the Digital Omnibus package has delayed the most demanding high-risk governance obligations — including those covering AI in the administration of justice — until December 2027. The EU AI Office and national authorities are now responsible for supervision and enforcement, with powers to request technical documentation, impose corrective measures, and issue fines. For legal teams operating across the EU, this means existing obligations under GDPR and sector regulation still apply to legal AI tools now, while the full AI Act compliance regime for court-facing AI systems is on a longer runway.
Survey: 60% of US Federal Judges Have Used AI in Their Work
Lawfare · Tools
A 2026 survey of 112 US federal judges found that more than 60% have used at least one AI tool in their work, though only 22% use AI weekly or daily — and nearly a quarter have no official AI policy in chambers. Judges were found to favour legal-specific AI products integrated into platforms like Lexis and Westlaw over general-purpose tools like ChatGPT or Claude. The findings expose a significant governance gap: AI is already shaping judicial work at scale, but without consistent institutional strategy or disclosure frameworks, creating both due process and transparency concerns for litigants.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/an-ai-playground-for-the-courts
UK Government’s LawtechUK Programme Relaunches with 2029 Mandate
The Law Society · Regulation
The UK Ministry of Justice has launched a tender for the next phase of LawtechUK, covering November 2026 to March 2029, with funding aimed at accelerating AI and legal technology tools — particularly for smaller firms and access-to-justice applications. The move comes alongside a broader government AI adoption plan for professional and business services, with Lord Chancellor David Lammy citing the legal sector’s £40bn annual contribution to the UK economy while acknowledging it has been held back by ‘analogue systems’. For UK legal practitioners, the relaunch signals sustained government backing for lawtech innovation, though some industry observers question whether government-led labs can match the pace of private-sector development.