A brief review may be enough for a lawyer to suspect that the document was generated using Artificial Intelligence (AI).
The lawyer asks: “What happens if events unfold differently and what protection would you expect in that situation?”
The lawyer then highlights a drafting risk and asks whether a commercially viable alternative has been considered.
The client confirms that AI produced the document because it was quick and convenient. This is becoming increasingly common – but speed does not remove legal risk.
AI is a tool, not a substitute
AI has a growing range of legitimate uses. It can help organise information, identify preliminary issues and improve efficiency. The real question is not whether AI should be used, but whether its limitations are understood and its output is properly checked.
The quality of an AI-generated response depends on the information and instructions supplied to it. Its output may contain errors, omit important points or present inaccurate information. Without sufficient subject knowledge, a user may not recognise those problems. Relying on AI to complete an entire legal task can therefore create significant risk.
Accuracy and accountability in legal work
Accuracy is particularly important in legal work. AI can assist with background research but its output must be verified by someone with the necessary expertise. The courts have already encountered legal documents containing non-existent authorities or inaccurate AI-generated material.
The message is clear - whichever tools are used, responsibility remains with the person who submits, approves or relies on the work.
A lawyer provides more than a document
Lawyers build their expertise through years of academic and practical training. What they offer is not simply legal knowledge but judgement, negotiation, experience and an ability to identify risk. When reviewing a document, a lawyer considers the client’s objectives, the commercial context, the scenarios that may arise and how each provision is likely to operate in practice.
Experienced lawyers also draw on sector knowledge and an understanding of how different parties approach a transaction or dispute. They can anticipate likely next steps and help a client assess which points matter most, where compromise may be appropriate and what protections are needed. AI cannot replicate that combination of expertise, experience and human judgement.
Upfront cost and longer-term risk
It is entirely reasonable for clients to want to control legal costs. However, the consequences of getting a document wrong must also form part of the assessment. If an AI-generated document omits a key protection, fails to reflect the actual circumstances and eventually gives rise to a dispute, the cost of correcting it – or of dealing with litigation – may greatly exceed the cost of obtaining appropriate legal advice at the outset. In some cases, rewriting a fundamentally flawed document is more efficient than checking and repairing it clause by clause.
The question worth asking
Before treating AI as a replacement for a lawyer, it is worth pausing to ask - if you are confident that an AI-generated document is reliable, why do you still want a lawyer to check it? That does not mean AI has no value. It means that, where rights, obligations and material risks are involved, independent professional judgement remains essential.
AI is most valuable when it helps people work more effectively – not when it is treated as a substitute for expertise and accountability.
If you would like to discuss this further, please do get in touch on tel: 01892 515022 or email Natalie on: nxl@cooperburnett.com
This blog is not intended as legal advice that can be relied upon.
