Can AI help me win my legal claim?

But recent cases have highlighted some major risks. 

 

 

In a civil case in Manchester in 2023, a claimant representing themself asked ChatGPT to find cases to support their argument. ChatGPT provided four cases. Three were real cases, but the paragraphs cited were false, while the fourth case name was entirely made up. Legal professionals have made the same mistake - in a Canadian child custody case, in Australian immigration and family law cases, and recently a firm from Walsall representing a client in a civil dispute.  

 

Even specialist AI isn't immune to hallucinations - one of the Australian lawyers was using specific legal software which had an AI element. Recently, Pinsent Mason's own AI programme hallucinated a rule about the court's powers. The judge commented that on many occasions, the AI programme was "plainly wrong or, at the very least, extremely misleading." 

 

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has published guidance for lawyers using AI, which explains “This might have happened because the system had learned that legal arguments include case and statute references in specific formats, but not that those references needed to be genuine.”  

 

One personal injury lawyer in America seems to have been aware of the issue, and attempted to get around it by asking the AI programme to confirm that the cases were real. The AI said “yes” and even gave references to the cases on legitimate reference databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw. The cases and references were in fact made up. 

 

 

AI is only as good as the information provided to it. While there is a wealth of legal information online, not all of it is up to date or of equal value. AI may struggle to identify which sources are reliable and up to date, and which sites are most reliable. Similarly, the quality of the response often depends upon the quality of the prompt. Without legal knowledge, it can be difficult to know what information is important, and how to explain nuanced context. 

 

For these reasons, it is vital to verify the information provided by AI. The legal software provider involved in the Australian case emphasised that “verifying the work was a key part of a lawyer’s ethical obligations.” 

 

Legal professionals should be able to spot hallucinations or incorrect interpretations, if not immediately then when researching to verify the references. Much of the criticism in these cases was about the lack of effort to verify information. One judge described it as "inexcusable on the part of a professionally qualified lawyer" that "misleading material" was placed before the court without "even the most simple of checks." In another case, the judge described an "extraordinary" lack of care which was "very troubling." 

 

The judge in the Pinsent Masons case said that AI should be treated as "a jumping off point for research and legal reasoning" but noted that it does not "do away with the need for proper research and thought on the part of a legal professional, even a very junior legal professional.’" Which raises the question of how a litigant-in-person could complete such research without the same legal knowledge, experience, familiarity or access to legal publishers. Many judgments, statutes and regulations are difficult to read and apply.  

 

 

The president of the Employment Tribunals for England and Wales has suggested that AI is contributing to severe delays in the tribunal system. AI often drafts overly-lengthy and complex claims, defences and appeals. It sometimes includes legal arguments that aren’t relevant to the facts of the case, such as claiming for interim relief. AI is also likely to inflate schedules of loss, creating unreasonable expectations which make it difficult to reach a settlement.  

 

This may be due to a lack of context, one-sided prompts, and a bias towards telling the user what they want to hear. 

 

The more complex a case, the longer the hearing will need to be. Parties end up facing long, unnecessary waits for a space in the tribunal schedule, when a shorter hearing would be fine had the case been pleaded properly. In the Pinsent Masons matter, the case would not normally have needed a hearing at all, but one was ordered due to concerns about the misleading statements, which it later emerged had come from AI.  

 

This of course adds extra time and expense. 

 

 

In each of the cases, it was noted that the court and the other party wasted considerable time and expense trying to determine whether the authorities referenced were real. In the Australian family case, the solicitor involved made a payment to the other side for wasted costs. Pinsent Masons covered their client's costs and the cost of finding new lawyers. Several of the lawyers involved have been investigated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (or the relevant organisation in their country) due to their conduct. 

 

The judge accepted that the litigant-in-person had not meant to mislead the court, and so did not penalise them.  

 

But judges have raised concerns about the potential effects of false caselaw and AI, including delays in the justice system, undermining faith in the system and even potential miscarriages of justice. With increased awareness of the problems with AI, it it becoming more difficult to argue that using AI was a naive mistake. The courts will need to prevent AI being used as an excuse for poor conduct.  

 

The courts already seem to be getting tougher on solicitors. With one judge suggesting a "robust approach" to the growing problem, it may not be long before litigants in person are also being held to higher standards.  

 

 

The easiest option it to seek specialist legal advice. If you have legal expenses insurance, it can help fund advice from a solicitor. Discuss with your solicitor whether they use any AI, how they use it, and what checks are done. Not all firms will use AI, and those who do will mostly have checks in place. But if your solicitor does make a mistake that affects your case, they will have insurance in place for the loss. 

 

Otherwise, it is better to get information from verified sources such as ACAS and Citizens Advice and then write your case yourself, including only relevant information. If you aren’t confident in your writing, you could use AI to check spelling, structure and tone, not legal information.