But Chat GPT told me I had a good claim..

Recent press coverage would lead us to believe that AI will result in the loss of many jobs in the legal sector.  There is no doubt that some of the AI tools available will impact some junior roles, given their time and cost saving capabilities.   On the other hand, it seems likely that in the near future at least, use of AI may in fact, result in more work for lawyers, as increasingly it is relied upon to produce correspondence or documents without any formal legal input. 

A good example of this is the context of litigation, where feelings may run high, but parties can’t always afford legal fees to pursue their claims. The attraction of using AI to draft a letter before action in minutes at little to no cost, is obvious.   What’s to lose if nothing comes of it?   

The problem lies more with the recipient who has to respond to such correspondence.  While AI capabilities are impressive, the results are not always accurate, with claims threatened against the wrong parties (e.g. in the property sector, against managing agents, rather than landlords), running to several pages of irrelevant legislation and cases in support because when pulling detail together, AI cannot pick up important nuances and exceptions to rules.  The result may look impressive and may embolden litigants in person who feel AI has justified their claim. 

Such letters cannot be ignored and addressing all the erroneous points and explaining why they do not further a particular argument will undoubtedly take more time and incur more in legal fees than having to respond to a well drafted, concise letter prepared by a solicitor who will have thought about the merits of the claim.  Lawyers are increasingly having to step in to pick apart AI claims.  

There is a risk, of course, that AI will be used to prepare a response, creating a Chat GPT v Microsoft Copilot stand-off but this does have potentially serious implications.  If both forms of AI are able to produce lengthy letters quoting case law and legislation (whether real or false, relevant or irrelevant), will this lead to more contested court cases because both parties to a dispute erroneously believe their case is strong? Equally, will the parties be willing to negotiate or engage in alternative dispute resolution or will they blindly believe what their AI is telling them and proceed along the court route, potentially further overwhelming court time and resources? 

Some junior barristers have recently been severely criticised by judges for citing cases that did not exist in support of their arguments. However, judges have had more sympathy for litigants in person, with one family court judge describing a mother’s use of AI in a skeleton argument as “entirely understandable” given the difficult position of litigants in person.

There is likely to be a place for AI in some form in litigation in the future. However, time will tell whether the unchecked use of AI is beneficial to the pursuit of justice or in fact ends up costing the parties more in the long run.  It may not spell the end of lawyers just yet. 

Subscribe to our latest insights by topic here.