As if hauling lawyers away from the comfort of archaic grandiose language wasn’t hard enough, we now have to deal with clients replicating the lexicon via AI. To begin, it was just an inkling that the language received in the text of an email didn’t match the client in the meeting. Its closest relation was the written note of a very junior lawyer seeking to impress the senior partner or Judge. It definitely wasn’t the language of heartbreak and discontent, with which family lawyers are so familiar.
Research unearthed online AI detectors, and like a GCSE history teacher determined to sniff out a cheat, the email text was entered and the satisfying red bar appeared, indicating AI had been detected in the client’s email. The truth was disclosed.
And then, the case law started to filter through. Old irrelevant cases and statutes which are way past their sell by date were raised in meetings. An eyebrow raised between solicitor and counsel. A deep sigh and long explanation.
And finally, worst of all, the AI savvy client to their lawyer with The Accusation….’you used AI to do that’. The sting of the insult soothed only by the impossibility of it being true.
Of course there’s a place for AI in law (email is below for when you find it) but it really needs to catch up with the way real lawyers communicate with each other and their clients. Perhaps it’s the American influence, or maybe AI just thinks we SHOULD adopt the language of our predecessors, but it needs to adapt to be useful.
And shorter. Those AI generated emails are really. Really. Long. TLDR. Is AI trying to cover its arse? More comparisons with very junior lawyers? But also increasing costs (review/reply/correct).