Do you need a lawyer if you have ChatGPT?

Is it possible to replace legal advice with AI, such as ChatGPT? Technology has really made legal information more accessible. You can get an answer quickly, free of charge and at any time. However, in the legal field, it is not speed and convenience that are decisive, but accuracy and responsibility.

We've tested some AI models for usefulness and can share the following observations.

Why do we believe AI is no substitute for a professional lawyer?

A legal problem is almost always nuanced. To get a correct answer from AI, it is necessary to correctly formulate the request and describe all legally significant circumstances. In practice, it is the details of the contract, the correspondence between the parties and the peculiarities of judicial practice that form the final result.

‍

Arguments against replacing a lawyer with ChatGPT

1. The complexity of formulating requests:

• to get a meaningful legal response from ChatGPT, you need to formulate the request (prompt) very accurately, and 99% of people will not be able to correctly formulate such a request to resolve a complex legal issue;
• it is necessary to convey the essence of many hours of dialogue (consultation) with a lawyer in text format;
• you need to scan and upload documents (sometimes difficult to read), which in itself complicates the process.

2. Inability to verify answers:

• ChatGPT is not responsible for its recommendations;
• there is no guarantee that the answer corresponds to the specific legal situation and the specifics of the legislation;
• AI “hallucinations” are a phenomenon in which a model produces convincing but false data that you will have to double-check.

3. Inability to draft high-quality legal documents:

• At the moment, AI is not able to create legally high-quality documents (contracts, lawsuits, claims), taking into account the peculiarities of specific businesses and situations;
• comments and corrections to contracts from AI are often far from reality and law enforcement practice, which, in the end, can cause confusion among counterparties and lead to the failure of the deal;
• generated texts require mandatory review and revision by a lawyer; AI often cannot correctly justify its corrections and comments;
• there are no guarantees of the correctness of the wording that may affect the outcome of the case.

4. AI will not be able to represent your interests in court or in negotiations.

This important part, along with the high-quality preparation of documents, is fundamental for a positive outcome of the case.

‍

‍

In defense of AI, we will say that technologies can be an effective auxiliary tool and can be used to solve the following tasks:

• preliminary search and structuring of information (it is desirable to double-check it anyway);
• preparing draft documents;
• identifying basic risks in the contract;
• explanations of complex legal terminology;
• preparing a list of questions for consultation.

‍

‍

AI is a useful tool for initial assessment of the situation and automation of routine tasks. However, in matters that have legal consequences, professional expertise and specialist responsibility remain key.

The optimal work model today is a combination of technology and legal practice. AI increases efficiency, and a lawyer ensures legal security and is responsible for the result. If you are not ready to entrust artificial intelligence to solve your problem and would like to entrust your problems to professionals, C Cases lawyers are always happy to help you solve your legal and business problems.