Artificial intelligence has reached legal consultations. More and more often a client arrives with a ready-made answer from ChatGPT (a chatbot built on a neural network) and says right away: “But the bot said…”
Some colleagues complain on social media: a person brings a printout and teaches the lawyer the law. Others raise their prices for such consultations in advance.
I treat this as part of the job. No drama, no sighing.
Below are my position, a look at the weak spots of chatbot answers, and a list of what to send with your questions.
Why Chatbot Answers Don’t Scare Me
A person has every right to look for answers anywhere: a search engine, a forum, a neighbor at the dacha, or a neural network. For a first look at a topic and quick hypotheses, a chatbot is handy.
The difference is responsibility. A chatbot produces plausible text. A lawyer answers for the result and for the consequences of their recommendations.
Some clients manage to act on the bot’s advice before they come to me: they send a demand letter, sign a document, miss a deadline. In that situation I first have to untangle what happened and only then solve the original problem.
That is work too, and I do it.
Where a ChatGPT Answer Fails on Legal Questions
I check such answers for three weak spots:
- An outdated or invented rule. The bot may cite a version of a law that is no longer in force, or an article that says something else.
- Incomplete facts. A chatbot relies only on what you showed it. If the contract and correspondence were not uploaded, it answers in generalities. If they were, it still does not know about oral agreements or anything left out of the frame.
- No practice and no consequences. How a rule works in a real court and what you risk is something a bot does not know and does not answer for.
A simple example: the rule on reducing a contractual penalty (Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). A court may reduce a penalty that is clearly disproportionate. If the debtor is a business, the court reduces it only on the debtor’s request, and a penalty set by contract only in exceptional cases (parts 1 to 3, Art. 333). A general summary loses such details.
A recent case from commercial court practice: a company cited court rulings that do not exist, and the court imposed a fine of ₽50,000. See the analysis in AI in Court: A ₽50,000 Fine.
Specialized legal services draw on a database of court rulings and surface similar cases. But a list of rulings is not yet an assessment of your situation.
Someone has to compare your circumstances with those rulings and see where they differ. A lawyer does that.
What to Send If You Come With a Chatbot or AI Answer
Send what you have, even if it is all in a mess.
These help most:
- Your prompt to the bot and its answer, both in full.
- A list of what you have already done on its advice: sent, signed, paid.
- Documents: the contract, correspondence, payment receipts.
- Your questions, written as a numbered list.
- Dates: note whether a deadline to reply to a demand letter or to go to court is already running.
Missing some of the materials? I will request the rest myself.
If serious consequences are at stake, do not sign or send anything before the consultation.
One more warning: protect the data you upload to a chatbot. You do not control what happens to your request afterward.
Do not upload to a chatbot:
- Passport details and information about other people. Data of clients, employees, and counterparties is protected by personal data law. Passing it to a service without a lawful ground can bring a fine under Art. 13.11 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses. I covered what a leak can cost in Data Leak: ₽400K Instead of ₽10M.
- Trade secrets. Information remains a trade secret only while the company keeps a list of everyone it was shared with and sets the rules for handling it in contracts (Art. 10 of Federal Law No. 98-FZ on Trade Secrets). By uploading it to a chatbot, you hand it to a third party with no record and no contract, and the protection of the secret may be called into question. For liability and for protecting a client database, see Trade Secrets: Protecting Your Client Database.
- Full contract details and correspondence. Replace names and amounts with placeholders: the substance is usually enough for a review.
Why I Give Written Consultations Only
Words get forgotten. A document stays. In a spoken conversation with a client armed with a chatbot, it is easy to get stuck in an endless round of “but the bot said otherwise.” A written opinion spares both sides that and saves their time.
It carries my signature and my responsibility. Before I send it, I recheck current case law and changes in legislation.
I give an honest assessment of the case’s prospects, outline the steps, and estimate the budget. More on the page How I Work and Why.
Work starts with a request. You describe the situation, I ask clarifying questions, request documents, and name the price. After payment, I prepare the written opinion.
I do not give oral consultations.
The price depends on the number of questions and the depth of analysis. Some points in the bot’s answer drop out right away. In the opinion I say plainly which of them are not worth attention. I analyze in detail the points the outcome depends on.
Ready to Answer You and Your Bot
You can send me a chatbot answer. I will review it in writing: note what is right, find the errors and outdated rules, and explain how the law works in a real court.
I am all for technology and work with it myself: I design legal logic for LegalTech services (online tools that automate part of legal services). More in How to Write a LegalTech Spec.
With artificial intelligence around, an experienced lawyer has more work, and arguing against an opponent has become more interesting. That raises the qualifications and professional level of a human lawyer.
Otherwise, it is business as usual.
We carry on.
Have a chatbot answer and questions about it? Write to me: +7 (902) 899-07-58 (Telegram, WhatsApp, KakaoTalk) or send a request.