When Clients Use AI Before They See A Lawyer
Clients are increasingly arriving with AI-generated legal research and documents. For lawyers, reviewing and correcting that material is real legal work and the fee should reflect the complexity and risk.
There is growing frustration among solo lawyers about the way some clients are using AI before they seek legal advice.
More than ever before, clients are arriving with AI-generated research, draft documents, suggested arguments or a view about what the law is and the lawyer then has to work through it.
The problem is the potential misinformation and misplaced confidence a client may already have before they reach a lawyer’s office.
I suspect this issue will get worse before it gets better.
AI is already too firmly embedded in people’s lives, well beyond legal services.
So, regardless of what lawyers think, clients are going to use it before, during and after they retain a lawyer.
The more important question is what happens when that material lands on the lawyer’s desk.
My view is that lawyers have to charge for dealing with it.
You still have to read it, digest it and assess it. You have to identify what is wrong, what is misleading, what is incomplete and, occasionally, what is actually useful.
That is work.
It is legal work.
In many cases, it is complex legal work.
The role of the lawyer is changing.
As more routine work is assisted or performed by AI, lawyers are increasingly being asked to exercise judgment over more complex issues and over material that has already been generated elsewhere.
That carries its own risks, and the fee should reflect that.
Not because the client used AI.
More so because the lawyer is being asked to review it, correct it where necessary and ultimately take professional responsibility for the advice that follows.
That may justify a higher fee in itself where the complexity, time and risk warrant it.
Convincing the client of that, however - well, that is another matter.
