AI clauses in terms of engagement: the six things RICS requires

Where AI use is material, RICS requires engagement documents to cover six things in writing — including client routes to contest AI use, seek redress and opt out. Most firms' terms cover none.

The least-discussed consequence of the RICS AI standard sits in your engagement pack. Where AI systems have a material impact on a service, the standard requires terms of engagement, contracts and service agreements to detail six things in writing. Most standard terms in circulation were drafted before March 2026 and cover none of them.

The six required items

1. When AI will be involved in delivering the service,
2. which parts of the process AI will be involved in,
3. the extent of professional indemnity cover for the firm's AI use, if available,
4. the internal process for a client to contest the use of an AI system,
5. the process for a client to seek redress if they feel negatively affected by AI use, and
6. whether and how a client can opt out of AI use in the service — if at all.

Items four to six surprise people: your own terms must hand clients a route to challenge the tools, a route to complain about outcomes, and a stated position on opting out. “If at all” is doing real work in item six — you may decide opt-out isn't offered, but the terms must say so.

Getting the drafting right

Three practical points. First, the clause and the advance notice are different duties — generic terms plus a specific written notice per instruction is the clean pattern. Second, item three needs a conversation with your PI broker before renewal, not after a claim; “if available” acknowledges cover positions vary. Third, the contest and redress routes should plug into processes you already run (complaints handling), not invent parallel machinery. Fold the whole thing into your AI policy so drafting and practice stay in step.

Do we need new terms if our AI use is immaterial?

The six-item duty attaches to material AI use. But terms are drafted ahead of instructions — if any service line plausibly uses AI materially this year, drafting the clauses now beats issuing terms you'll contradict by summer. Record the materiality reasoning either way.

Can clients actually forbid us from using AI?

That's your call to make in the terms — the standard requires you to state whether and how opt-out works, not to offer it. What you cannot do is stay silent and improvise when a client asks.

This article is general information, not legal advice — engagement terms should be reviewed by your legal adviser and PI broker. ComplyQS is not affiliated with or endorsed by RICS.