The question is increasingly being asked: can legal advice be replaced by AI such as ChatGPT? Technology really has made legal information more accessible. You can get an answer quickly, free of charge and at any time. In law, however, what matters most is not speed and convenience but accuracy and accountability.

We tested several AI models for usefulness and can share the following observations.

A modern dilemma: a lawyer or AI — who will give the right legal advice?

Why do we think AI will not replace a professional lawyer?

A legal problem almost always consists of nuances. To get a correct answer from AI, you need to phrase the request well and describe all the legally significant circumstances. In practice, it is the details of the contract, the correspondence between the parties and the specifics of case law that shape the outcome.

Arguments against replacing a lawyer with ChatGPT

1. Difficulty phrasing requests:

• to get a meaningful legal answer from ChatGPT, the request (prompt) has to be phrased very precisely, and 99% of people will not be able to write such a request for a complex legal issue;
• you need to convey the substance of a consultation that could last hours with a lawyer in text form;
• documents (sometimes barely legible) need to be scanned and uploaded, which complicates the process in itself.

2. Answers cannot be verified:

• ChatGPT bears no responsibility for its recommendations;
• there is no guarantee that the answer fits the specific legal situation and the specifics of the law;
• AI "hallucinations" — when a model produces convincing but false information that you will have to double-check.

3. Inability to draft quality legal documents:

• at present, AI cannot produce legally sound documents (contracts, statements of claim, demand letters) that take into account the specifics of a particular business and situation;
• AI's comments and edits to contracts are often far removed from reality and enforcement practice, which can puzzle counterparties and end up derailing a deal;
• generated texts must be checked and reworked by a lawyer, and AI often cannot properly justify its edits and comments;
• there is no guarantee that the wording, which can affect the outcome of a case, is correct.

4. AI cannot represent your interests in court or in negotiations.

Together with properly drafted documents, this is fundamental to a positive outcome.

AI's potential as an auxiliary tool in legal practice

In AI's defence, the technology can be an effective auxiliary tool for tasks such as:

• preliminary research and structuring of information (which is still best double-checked);
• preparing first drafts of documents;
• spotting basic risks in a contract;
• explaining complex legal terminology;
• preparing a list of questions for a consultation.

Conclusions

AI is a useful tool for an initial assessment of a situation and for automating routine tasks. But where there are legal consequences, professional expertise and the specialist's accountability remain key.

The best model today combines technology and legal practice. AI improves efficiency, while the lawyer ensures legal safety and is responsible for the result. If you are not ready to entrust your problem to artificial intelligence and would rather leave it to professionals, C Cases lawyers are always happy to help with your legal and business matters.