CHAUDHRI: AI adding more costs to your lawsuit than it should
AI has turned into a verbose, annoying family member that asks lots of broad, doomsday questions that often drain the energy from the room.
AI has turned into a verbose, annoying family member that asks lots of broad, doomsday questions that often drain the energy from the room.
Dear reader, here is a public service announcement I implore you to consider. Before you hire a professional, for any service, consider the role you want AI to play.
When sophisticated clients come to me asking legal questions created by AI, I let out the equivalent of a loud, albeit internal, sigh. AI has turned into a verbose annoying family member that asks lots of broad, doomsday questions that often drain the energy from the room.
Ask any lawyer, doctor or professional that meets with everyday people about important issues. Most people prepare for these meetings with the help of AI and then present a laundry list of questions to said professionals who must then wearily plod through answers, prepared to defend their position. The service relationship consequently starts off antagonistic, human versus bot, instead of a productive, successful partnership.
In the legal context, this causes a number of problems.
First, if you are paying your professional for their time, asking high level questions that you have not read in advance expands the scope of time and representation. A simple matter could become unnecessarily complicated and complex. Client meetings that used to wrap up in an hour could take double that to sort through and respond to AI generated questions. Some of these questions are tacitly relevant and could raise interesting perspectives, but often AI lacks context and, as such, many questions need not be answered at the moment they are raised, or sometimes at all.
Thinking about this deeply, do you really need an answer to a question that you did not think about asking? By getting answers to general questions that did not come to you organically, does your view of your experience change?
I am all for using AI to help formulate your thoughts on your current legal situation and what issues you genuinely want to pursue. But if you intend to push across the table a list of questions you have not read or thought about, why are you paying to receive the answers?
Even though this is common sense, it happens anyway. When I receive an AI list of questions, my practice now is to book a call with my client. I do not want clients spending more money on my services if I can help it. Still, AI creep can drive up legal costs unnecessarily. Lawyers have a duty to respond to client queries.
So, I ask clients to tell me, “From the list of questions you sent me, what is actually on your mind? What problem do we need to solve today?” This usually leads to better conversations where we start to break down the stressors of the case, potential hurdles and how to create a path to success. Fifteen minutes of talking can do wonders.
I encourage clients to refrain from using AI to send me responses to my emails. When a one-line response will do, don’t send me a two page ‘summary’ response created by your LLM model. I doubt you want to pay me to read it (especially when you likely have not).
Another major issue is capacity. It’s my job to ensure I am getting clear instructions from my client. I need to know they have provided me with instructions and that I am not receiving instructions from a chat tool.
If my client is forwarding me the musings of their AI agent without critically thinking about the path, the impact, the strategy and the costs associated with such an approach, there could be deleterious consequences. In time, this could lead to professionals turning down cases – particularly if they cannot ascertain who (or what) is driving the decision making.
Given this trend, I find myself asking for more ‘in real life’ time with my clients. I am moving away from communicating solely through email as I want clients to think before inputting every element of their case into AI to get a ‘second opinion’ before truly formulating their own.
I suppose my PSA ends like this: Do not sleep walk through litigation or your legal case by using AI to make decisions for you. AI can complicate straightforward cases. It can ask questions that you are paying to get answers to on a whole range of topics that may not apply to you at all. You may be sending the wrong message to your counsel about the issues that truly matter to you.
For example, you may care much more about reputation than money. Conversely, you may care much more about money than maintaining any form of relationship with the party you are suing.
You need to sit with these questions and guide your counsel on what matters most so they can go and try to achieve your personal, discrete objectives. Every client I work with has a slightly different view on what they want their life to look like after working with me. Some want to change industries, some want to invest their settlement and make passive income. Others want to go scorched earth and ensure no one else endures the same treatment they did. It’s all different and it all matters.
If you leave it to AI to think for you, it could take much too long for you to make decisions that matter in a legal case.
The longer you delegate that thinking away, the more expensive your journey will be. What I love most about being a lawyer is creatively brainstorming with my clients about all the options they could pursue by working with me. Don’t rob yourself (or me) of that wonderful opportunity by mistaking AI for a sentient being.
Litigation after all, is all about people, emotion and psychology. Something AI has not quite mastered yet.
Have a workplace question? Maybe I can help! Email sunira@worklylaw.com and your question may be featured in a future column. The content of this article is general information only and is not legal advice.