Artificial intelligence is reshaping professional services, but how can accountants harness AI virtual assistants for genuine productivity gains while navigating regulatory risk? As artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in business operations, accountancy is beginning to move beyond adoption and into implementation. Virtual assistants powered by AI are now supporting a range of back-office and client-facing tasks.
From managing deadlines to drafting reports, these systems offer the potential to significantly streamline workflows. Yet alongside these benefits come legal, ethical and operational questions that accounting professionals cannot afford to ignore.
Operational gains, if used with care
AI virtual assistants are already being deployed to handle repetitive administrative work, including summarising meeting notes, producing draft communications and initiating routine financial analyses. In the context of a profession increasingly shaped by cost pressure and regulatory oversight, this automation brings real advantages.
In ‘The tipping point: Measuring the success of AI in tax’, a recent survey by Tolley of over 350 tax professionals, 74% reported that the main benefit of generative AI was faster delivery of work. Enhanced speed, however, is not an end in itself. For accountancy teams, it means improved responsiveness, greater consistency in outputs, and the ability to reallocate human expertise to more complex issues.
What is critical is understanding where AI should augment, rather than replace, the judgement of a qualified accountant. Tasks involving compliance interpretation, client-specific recommendations or ethical discretion still require human oversight. The goal is to support decision-making, not to delegate it entirely.
The dual challenge of trust and training
One of the persistent tensions in professional adoption of AI is the balance between innovation and reliability. In the same study, tax professionals identified their top concerns with AI as hallucinations (60%), over-reliance (59%) and the potential for data leakage (43%). These issues are equally relevant for accountants, particularly in regulated environments or when handling sensitive client information.
Despite the risks, adoption is increasing. Nearly nine in ten tax professionals surveyed are now using, or planning to use, generative AI in their work. But uptake is uneven, and training is a major barrier. Almost two-thirds said they would use AI more often if they had appropriate training. This gap between potential and practice is likely to be mirrored in the accounting profession.
For firms exploring AI assistants, developing a structured programme of education and governance is essential. This should include guidance on how AI tools operate, how to interrogate and validate outputs, and when to escalate for manual review. As Hayley McKelvey, Partner at Deloitte, put it: ‘This isn’t about turning our tax practitioners into data scientists, but it is about building a high level of understanding that promotes confidence and trust.’
Measuring effectiveness, not just efficiency
Initial enthusiasm can quickly fade if outcomes are unclear. The LexisNexis survey found that almost half of firms had not established any formal metrics for assessing AI success. Without benchmarks, firms risk falling into two traps: either continuing to invest in tools that deliver minimal value, or under-utilising tools with untapped potential.
Effective measurement should consider both traditional and qualitative indicators. Time saved is easy to track, but so too is error reduction, internal adoption rates and client satisfaction. As one BDO partner noted, true success lies in ‘how it helps us deliver a better, more responsive service to our clients’.
The case for monitoring usage is particularly strong in finance and accounting, where seemingly small inaccuracies can result in significant compliance risk. Transparency, auditability and documented oversight are all critical components of a responsible AI strategy.
Strategic adoption means planning for risk
Accountants are used to balancing risk. But AI introduces a new category: the risk of doing nothing. One in five tax professionals said they would consider leaving their firm if it failed to invest adequately in AI. As client expectations evolve and younger professionals seek out technology-forward environments, failing to adapt could create not only operational inefficiencies but also talent drain.
Conversely, blind enthusiasm can be just as dangerous. Using AI tools without appropriate data controls or review protocols introduces legal, reputational and ethical vulnerabilities. Responsible deployment must include limits on sensitive data inputs, clear accountability structures, and transparency with clients regarding the use of AI in service delivery.
According to Paul Aplin, Vice President at the Chartered Institute of Taxation, the professional responsibility lies in knowing how to assess AI output critically. ‘Knowing which sources you can and cannot rely on is a basic professional skill, and it is as applicable to the output from AI as any other tool.’
From experimentation to implementation
AI virtual assistants are no longer speculative technology. Used wisely, they offer real benefits in speed, accuracy and insight. But successful integration into accountancy requires more than just access to tools. It demands a commitment to training, a framework for risk management, and a strategy for demonstrating tangible outcomes.
The profession is at a tipping point. Strategic adopters will not only reduce inefficiencies, but also improve staff retention and client satisfaction.
Author bio
Dylan Brown works in content marketing and thought leadership for LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
This isn’t about turning our tax practitioners into data scientists, but it is about building a high level of understanding that promotes confidence and trust.
Hayley McKelvey, Partner, Deloitte
