There\u2019s lots of talk about the impact of GenAI and LLMs on the practice of law and what\u00a0they\u00a0will do\u00a0to\u00a0everything\u00a0from\u00a0workflows\u00a0to business\u00a0models\u00a0to young lawyer\u00a0training. But one thing that\u2019s not talked about much is the impact GenAI will have on\u00a0client\u00a0relationships.<\/p>\n
Clients\u00a0have always\u00a0come to their lawyer believing in the rightness of their cause. Now they will come with information from a third player: an LLM tool.\u00a0Whether that information is right or wrong,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0going to impact the trust between lawyer and\u00a0clients. And lawyers better be ready.\u00a0<\/p>\n
To State the Obvious, Clients Are Using GenAI for Legal Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n The large\u00a0accounting\u00a0firm, Deloitte,\u00a0recently surveyed<\/a>\u00a0the top 100 Dutch law firms to determine the state of AI adoption in day-to-day operations. (The fact that the survey was done by an accounting firm that itself offers legal services, at least in some jurisdictions, ought to give legal pause.) The\u00a0survey looked at a variety of things like strategy, training, and importantly, client expectations, among other things.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what\u00a0Deloitte\u00a0discovered about law firm clients:\u00a060% of the firms report that clients are now using AI tools to perform simple legal tasks. As a result,\u00a0clients\u00a0are expecting\u00a0from their\u00a0lawyers\u00a0faster turnaround times,\u00a0transparency\u00a0about AI risk, and of\u00a0course, lower\u00a0fees.\u00a0Significantly, only 3% of the firms\u00a0had seen no change in client expectations.<\/p>\n What this means is not only will clients be using the tools to perform \u201csimple\u201d tasks,\u00a0but they are also\u00a0going to use them\u00a0more and more\u00a0for pure legal\u00a0advice\u00a0and strategy, often even before they see a lawyer. This poses all kinds of practical\u00a0problems, particularly\u00a0given\u00a0the fact that GenAI tools\u00a0hallucinate, give wrong answers and advice,\u00a0and often will tell clients\u00a0what they want to hear.<\/p>\n The Practical Problems<\/strong><\/p>\n If a client talks to his GenAI and gets bad\u00a0advice\u00a0and then acts on it to their\u00a0detriment, that\u2019s a real problem.\u00a0By\u00a0doing so, the client may very well place themselves\u00a0unknowingly\u00a0in\u00a0harm\u2019s way. And by postponing\u00a0seeking\u00a0human\u00a0legal advice, the client may\u00a0make\u00a0their\u00a0position\u00a0even worse.<\/p>\n There\u2019s also the discoverability problem:\u00a0what the client tells his favorite bot may\u00a0itself\u00a0be discoverable, as I have\u00a0written\u00a0before<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n So,\u00a0by the time the client does finally see a lawyer, that lawyer\u00a0may\u00a0have to spend time cleaning up\u00a0a\u00a0mess. That will likely cost the client more,\u00a0not\u00a0less money, in the long run.<\/p>\n But the practical problems may be the least of it.<\/p>\n A\u00a0<\/strong>Human Relations Problem<\/strong><\/p>\n The human relations\u00a0dynamic plays out in concrete ways\u00a0trial lawyers\u00a0will recognize immediately.\u00a0Think of this: there\u2019s a dispute with conflicting testimony. The client thinks his version will prevail in front of a jury and the bot supports him. The lawyer looks at\u00a0the testimony\u00a0and knows intuitively that the client\u2019s version will not convince the jury for a whole lot of reasons\u00a0like body language, jurors\u2019\u00a0perception, and bias. How will the lawyer ever persuade the client\u00a0(and their bot)\u00a0that the client\u2019s version will not prevail?<\/p>\n Since time immemorial,\u00a0clients\u00a0came to a lawyer convinced\u00a0of the merits of their matter. That their version of the facts is the most convincing. That their strategy of what their lawyer ought to do is the best. It doesn\u2019t matter whether it\u2019s a family law matter or a\u00a0sophisticated businessperson, most of the time\u00a0clients think they\u00a0know\u00a0more than their\u00a0lawyers.<\/p>\n Even in the best of times, this always placed the lawyer in a difficult spot. Pointing out to a stubborn client that their\u00a0theory and strategy is wrong is always\u00a0dicey. Say too\u00a0little and the client gets the wrong idea about\u00a0their\u00a0case. That wrong idea will only fester and grow over the\u00a0length\u00a0of the case and can lead to horrible results and trauma later. I have seen it happen\u00a0so many times: the lawyer gives the client the idea they are right and a year later when a good settlement offer comes around, the client balks because they think their case is better than it is.<\/p>\n But if the lawyer says too much, it\u2019s also a\u00a0problem. I\u2019ve heard too many people complain that their\u00a0lawyer \u201cwasn\u2019t on their side\u201d because they\u00a0were\u00a0overly\u00a0blunt\u00a0in their assessment.\u00a0It erodes trust.<\/p>\n But now we have a third player in the mix:\u00a0a\u00a0GenAI\u00a0bot\u00a0who\u00a0may just\u00a0be flat out\u00a0wrong in its assessment of a case or problem. Moreover,\u00a0it may be\u00a0telling\u00a0the\u00a0client\u00a0what\u00a0they\u00a0want to hear. And when a client tells\u00a0their story to their favorite bot, they are going to tell it in the most favorable\u00a0way.\u00a0<\/p>\n So,\u00a0now\u00a0if a client wasn\u2019t already convinced\u00a0in the merits of the case before,\u00a0they\u00a0now\u00a0have\u00a0\u201cevidence\u201d from the bot.\u00a0The result? It\u2019s going to be harder to disabuse them of what the bot has told\u00a0them,\u00a0and the\u00a0lawyers\u2019\u00a0job\u00a0will get\u00a0a whole lot harder.\u00a0<\/p>\n Another problem: if a client listened to a bot before they came to see the lawyer, they are probably\u00a0going to listen to one throughout the matter.\u00a0So,\u00a0every call the lawyer makes, every recommendation they make, might be reviewed by bot.<\/p>\n But the crux of the matter is that the law and legal strategy is always a gray area, even more so than other disciplines like\u00a0medicine. And when it comes to strategy calls, the lawyer and the client only know the result of the strategy\u00a0that was adopted, not the ones that weren\u2019t.\u00a0So,\u00a0the second guessing never ends.<\/p>\n Add on top of this the fee issue. The client believes based on the bot that the work the lawyer needs to do is not\u00a0necessary. It\u2019s a simple, slam-dunk case that shouldn\u2019t cost\u00a0as\u00a0much\u00a0as it is.\u00a0<\/p>\n But the lawyer\u00a0has to\u00a0clean up the mess that wrong advice may have caused. The lawyer\u00a0has to\u00a0spend time convincing\u00a0the client of reality and what needs to be done. All of that takes time and increases cost.\u00a0In the meantime, a\u00a0case and a relationship turn into\u00a0a nightmare.<\/p>\n Bottom line: if\u00a0lawyers\u00a0aren\u2019t careful, they\u00a0will\u00a0face an erosion of trust in the attorney-client relationship as their judgment and advice is substituted for that of AI.\u00a0That trust has always been the bedrock\u00a0not only\u00a0of the relationship\u00a0but in\u00a0getting the best result.<\/p>\n It Need Not be Insurmountable\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s not\u00a0a\u00a0hopeless\u00a0situation. But it does require an understanding of the problem and greater education all the way around.\u00a0<\/p>\n First and foremost, if there ever was a reason for\u00a0lawyers\u00a0to become educated about AI and its risks (and benefits), it is\u00a0ironically\u00a0to bolster the level of trust in the human side of things. A lawyer\u00a0has to\u00a0be ready to explain to the client not only why the bot is wrong when it is, but also that\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0inherent\u00a0in the structure of LLMs to make mistakes and try to tell the prompter what they want to hear.\u00a0And\u00a0lawyers\u00a0also\u00a0need to be ready to tell clients before\u00a0problems\u00a0develop\u00a0about\u00a0the risks of creating discovery trails.<\/p>\n A lawyer can\u2019t do\u00a0all\u00a0that without that knowledge themselves.<\/p>\n On the flip side, lawyers need to realize that GenAI tools often give\u00a0sound\u00a0answers. We can\u2019t argue with the result of a prompt if the result is right.\u00a0That will not breed\u00a0trust\u00a0much less yield good outcomes.\u00a0There is a time and place for GenAI tools and\u00a0lawyers must\u00a0use them to their and their clients\u2019\u00a0benefit.\u00a0<\/p>\n All that being said, good\u00a0lawyers know the law, they understand exposure,\u00a0and\u00a0they know how best to navigate the exposure. And now more than ever, they will need\u00a0to\u00a0understand their clients and\u00a0to be adept at explaining all\u00a0those things to their clients.\u00a0<\/p>\n And know this: clients will have more information than ever\u00a0before,\u00a0so we better be on\u00a0our\u00a0toes. Gone\u00a0are\u00a0the days where a lawyer can just say this is what we are going to do and expect the client to accept it.\u00a0<\/p>\n Years\u00a0ago,\u00a0I was called upon to explain the\u00a0intricacies\u00a0of class actions\u00a0to a room full of insurance executives. I knew a lot about class actions already, but I spent hours practicing what I was going to say to a group that was a) skeptical and b) had no understanding of class actions and their\u00a0peculiarities\u00a0that often seem counterintuitive. At the end of the discussion, there was silence and then one of them said one word:\u00a0brilliant. That cemented their trust in me.<\/p>\n In the days of GenAI, it is just\u00a0that kind of trust, earned through\u00a0preparation, knowledge,\u00a0and understanding the client,\u00a0that\u00a0lawyers will need to earn by doing\u00a0what GenAI can\u2019t.<\/p>\n Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n The post Clients\u00a0And\u00a0GenAI:\u00a0Lawyers Better\u00a0Be Ready\u00a0To Deal\u00a0With\u00a0It<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n There\u2019s lots of talk about the impact of GenAI and LLMs on the practice of law and what\u00a0they\u00a0will do\u00a0to\u00a0everything\u00a0from\u00a0workflows\u00a0to business\u00a0models\u00a0to young lawyer\u00a0training. But one thing that\u2019s not talked about much is the impact GenAI will have on\u00a0client\u00a0relationships.<\/p>\n Clients\u00a0have always\u00a0come to their lawyer believing in the rightness of their cause. Now they will come with information from a third player: an LLM tool.\u00a0Whether that information is right or wrong,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0going to impact the trust between lawyer and\u00a0clients. And lawyers better be ready.\u00a0<\/p>\n To State the Obvious, Clients Are Using GenAI for Legal Questions<\/strong><\/p>\n The large\u00a0accounting\u00a0firm, Deloitte,\u00a0recently surveyed<\/a>\u00a0the top 100 Dutch law firms to determine the state of AI adoption in day-to-day operations. (The fact that the survey was done by an accounting firm that itself offers legal services, at least in some jurisdictions, ought to give legal pause.) The\u00a0survey looked at a variety of things like strategy, training, and importantly, client expectations, among other things.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s what\u00a0Deloitte\u00a0discovered about law firm clients:\u00a060% of the firms report that clients are now using AI tools to perform simple legal tasks. As a result,\u00a0clients\u00a0are expecting\u00a0from their\u00a0lawyers\u00a0faster turnaround times,\u00a0transparency\u00a0about AI risk, and of\u00a0course, lower\u00a0fees.\u00a0Significantly, only 3% of the firms\u00a0had seen no change in client expectations.<\/p>\n What this means is not only will clients be using the tools to perform \u201csimple\u201d tasks,\u00a0but they are also\u00a0going to use them\u00a0more and more\u00a0for pure legal\u00a0advice\u00a0and strategy, often even before they see a lawyer. This poses all kinds of practical\u00a0problems, particularly\u00a0given\u00a0the fact that GenAI tools\u00a0hallucinate, give wrong answers and advice,\u00a0and often will tell clients\u00a0what they want to hear.<\/p>\n The Practical Problems<\/strong><\/p>\n If a client talks to his GenAI and gets bad\u00a0advice\u00a0and then acts on it to their\u00a0detriment, that\u2019s a real problem.\u00a0By\u00a0doing so, the client may very well place themselves\u00a0unknowingly\u00a0in\u00a0harm\u2019s way. And by postponing\u00a0seeking\u00a0human\u00a0legal advice, the client may\u00a0make\u00a0their\u00a0position\u00a0even worse.<\/p>\n There\u2019s also the discoverability problem:\u00a0what the client tells his favorite bot may\u00a0itself\u00a0be discoverable, as I have\u00a0written\u00a0before<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n So,\u00a0by the time the client does finally see a lawyer, that lawyer\u00a0may\u00a0have to spend time cleaning up\u00a0a\u00a0mess. That will likely cost the client more,\u00a0not\u00a0less money, in the long run.<\/p>\n But the practical problems may be the least of it.<\/p>\n A\u00a0<\/strong>Human Relations Problem<\/strong><\/p>\n The human relations\u00a0dynamic plays out in concrete ways\u00a0trial lawyers\u00a0will recognize immediately.\u00a0Think of this: there\u2019s a dispute with conflicting testimony. The client thinks his version will prevail in front of a jury and the bot supports him. The lawyer looks at\u00a0the testimony\u00a0and knows intuitively that the client\u2019s version will not convince the jury for a whole lot of reasons\u00a0like body language, jurors\u2019\u00a0perception, and bias. How will the lawyer ever persuade the client\u00a0(and their bot)\u00a0that the client\u2019s version will not prevail?<\/p>\n Since time immemorial,\u00a0clients\u00a0came to a lawyer convinced\u00a0of the merits of their matter. That their version of the facts is the most convincing. That their strategy of what their lawyer ought to do is the best. It doesn\u2019t matter whether it\u2019s a family law matter or a\u00a0sophisticated businessperson, most of the time\u00a0clients think they\u00a0know\u00a0more than their\u00a0lawyers.<\/p>\n Even in the best of times, this always placed the lawyer in a difficult spot. Pointing out to a stubborn client that their\u00a0theory and strategy is wrong is always\u00a0dicey. Say too\u00a0little and the client gets the wrong idea about\u00a0their\u00a0case. That wrong idea will only fester and grow over the\u00a0length\u00a0of the case and can lead to horrible results and trauma later. I have seen it happen\u00a0so many times: the lawyer gives the client the idea they are right and a year later when a good settlement offer comes around, the client balks because they think their case is better than it is.<\/p>\n But if the lawyer says too much, it\u2019s also a\u00a0problem. I\u2019ve heard too many people complain that their\u00a0lawyer \u201cwasn\u2019t on their side\u201d because they\u00a0were\u00a0overly\u00a0blunt\u00a0in their assessment.\u00a0It erodes trust.<\/p>\n But now we have a third player in the mix:\u00a0a\u00a0GenAI\u00a0bot\u00a0who\u00a0may just\u00a0be flat out\u00a0wrong in its assessment of a case or problem. Moreover,\u00a0it may be\u00a0telling\u00a0the\u00a0client\u00a0what\u00a0they\u00a0want to hear. And when a client tells\u00a0their story to their favorite bot, they are going to tell it in the most favorable\u00a0way.\u00a0<\/p>\n So,\u00a0now\u00a0if a client wasn\u2019t already convinced\u00a0in the merits of the case before,\u00a0they\u00a0now\u00a0have\u00a0\u201cevidence\u201d from the bot.\u00a0The result? It\u2019s going to be harder to disabuse them of what the bot has told\u00a0them,\u00a0and the\u00a0lawyers\u2019\u00a0job\u00a0will get\u00a0a whole lot harder.\u00a0<\/p>\n Another problem: if a client listened to a bot before they came to see the lawyer, they are probably\u00a0going to listen to one throughout the matter.\u00a0So,\u00a0every call the lawyer makes, every recommendation they make, might be reviewed by bot.<\/p>\n But the crux of the matter is that the law and legal strategy is always a gray area, even more so than other disciplines like\u00a0medicine. And when it comes to strategy calls, the lawyer and the client only know the result of the strategy\u00a0that was adopted, not the ones that weren\u2019t.\u00a0So,\u00a0the second guessing never ends.<\/p>\n Add on top of this the fee issue. The client believes based on the bot that the work the lawyer needs to do is not\u00a0necessary. It\u2019s a simple, slam-dunk case that shouldn\u2019t cost\u00a0as\u00a0much\u00a0as it is.\u00a0<\/p>\n But the lawyer\u00a0has to\u00a0clean up the mess that wrong advice may have caused. The lawyer\u00a0has to\u00a0spend time convincing\u00a0the client of reality and what needs to be done. All of that takes time and increases cost.\u00a0In the meantime, a\u00a0case and a relationship turn into\u00a0a nightmare.<\/p>\n Bottom line: if\u00a0lawyers\u00a0aren\u2019t careful, they\u00a0will\u00a0face an erosion of trust in the attorney-client relationship as their judgment and advice is substituted for that of AI.\u00a0That trust has always been the bedrock\u00a0not only\u00a0of the relationship\u00a0but in\u00a0getting the best result.<\/p>\n It Need Not be Insurmountable\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n It\u2019s not\u00a0a\u00a0hopeless\u00a0situation. But it does require an understanding of the problem and greater education all the way around.\u00a0<\/p>\n First and foremost, if there ever was a reason for\u00a0lawyers\u00a0to become educated about AI and its risks (and benefits), it is\u00a0ironically\u00a0to bolster the level of trust in the human side of things. A lawyer\u00a0has to\u00a0be ready to explain to the client not only why the bot is wrong when it is, but also that\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0inherent\u00a0in the structure of LLMs to make mistakes and try to tell the prompter what they want to hear.\u00a0And\u00a0lawyers\u00a0also\u00a0need to be ready to tell clients before\u00a0problems\u00a0develop\u00a0about\u00a0the risks of creating discovery trails.<\/p>\n A lawyer can\u2019t do\u00a0all\u00a0that without that knowledge themselves.<\/p>\n On the flip side, lawyers need to realize that GenAI tools often give\u00a0sound\u00a0answers. We can\u2019t argue with the result of a prompt if the result is right.\u00a0That will not breed\u00a0trust\u00a0much less yield good outcomes.\u00a0There is a time and place for GenAI tools and\u00a0lawyers must\u00a0use them to their and their clients\u2019\u00a0benefit.\u00a0<\/p>\n All that being said, good\u00a0lawyers know the law, they understand exposure,\u00a0and\u00a0they know how best to navigate the exposure. And now more than ever, they will need\u00a0to\u00a0understand their clients and\u00a0to be adept at explaining all\u00a0those things to their clients.\u00a0<\/p>\n And know this: clients will have more information than ever\u00a0before,\u00a0so we better be on\u00a0our\u00a0toes. Gone\u00a0are\u00a0the days where a lawyer can just say this is what we are going to do and expect the client to accept it.\u00a0<\/p>\n Years\u00a0ago,\u00a0I was called upon to explain the\u00a0intricacies\u00a0of class actions\u00a0to a room full of insurance executives. I knew a lot about class actions already, but I spent hours practicing what I was going to say to a group that was a) skeptical and b) had no understanding of class actions and their\u00a0peculiarities\u00a0that often seem counterintuitive. At the end of the discussion, there was silence and then one of them said one word:\u00a0brilliant. That cemented their trust in me.<\/p>\n In the days of GenAI, it is just\u00a0that kind of trust, earned through\u00a0preparation, knowledge,\u00a0and understanding the client,\u00a0that\u00a0lawyers will need to earn by doing\u00a0what GenAI can\u2019t.<\/p>\n Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n The post Clients\u00a0And\u00a0GenAI:\u00a0Lawyers Better\u00a0Be Ready\u00a0To Deal\u00a0With\u00a0It<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" There\u2019s lots of talk about the impact of GenAI and LLMs on the practice of law and what\u00a0they\u00a0will do\u00a0to\u00a0everything\u00a0from\u00a0workflows\u00a0to business\u00a0models\u00a0to young lawyer\u00a0training. But one thing that\u2019s not talked about much is the impact GenAI will have on\u00a0client\u00a0relationships. Clients\u00a0have always\u00a0come to their lawyer believing in the rightness of their cause. Now they will come with information […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-144577","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144577","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=144577"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/144577\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=144577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=144577"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=144577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\n