What do you do when your client knows more about the law and strategy than you do? Or at least thinks they do. That\u2019s the dilemma a lot of lawyers and legal professionals face these days. Clients come into the office armed with all sorts of advice and information they have obtained from publicly facing AI systems, information which is often just wrong.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s Face It, Clients Are Using AI<\/strong><\/p>\n I was talking to a couple of criminal lawyers recently about this very subject. They say it happens all the time. And it\u2019s not just that the clients have information that may or may not be correct or even helpful. It\u2019s the confidence that the clients seem to have in that information. Which makes the lawyer\u2019s job that much harder when the information or recommended strategy is wrong. It takes time away from the case handling to constantly try to convince the client that the bot is off base. A bot that, of course, says things with such confidence.<\/p>\n I\u2019m sure it\u2019s the same on the civil side. The problem is not just one of convincing the client that what they got from the bot is bad, it\u2019s the seeds of mistrust that are being sown. The law and strategy are often gray areas. Many times, there is no clearly right answer, no foolproof strategy or guaranteed outcome. The best answers often stem from the lawyers\u2019 combined experience, judgment and know how, much of which can\u2019t be duplicated by a bot.<\/p>\n If I Had A Better Lawyer<\/strong><\/p>\n But when the client begins to wonder that the lawyer\u2019s recommendations are wrong based on what a bot tells them, the client starts to think: I would be getting a better result if I had a better lawyer. A lawyer who would do what ChatGPT recommends.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Add to this the fact that all too often AI tools will tell a person what it thinks the person wants to hear. And you have real and nagging problem. It\u2019s a problem that will lead to a lot of time and energy being spent trying to convince the client that they should be listeing to you, not ChatGPT.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s a problem not just at the beginning of the case when the client walks in the door. It runs throughout the case. If the client goes to ChatGPT before they see their lawyer, you can bet that they are going to go back to ChatGPT every time the lawyer tells them something they don\u2019t want to hear or don\u2019t believe. Which will lead to more and more arguments, distrust, and disruption for the human lawyer.\u00a0<\/p>\n Not to mention the fact that the client may be revealing attorney-client privileged information in its discussions with the bot. As I have previously discussed<\/a>, placing confidential material in a public AI platform risks waiving the privilege since it may no longer be considered confidential. It\u2019s hard enough for lawyers to use AI and avoid this waiver. It may be well-nigh impossible for a client trying to get the answer they want to hear to not tell the bot more than they should.<\/p>\n Using AI To Turn The Tables<\/strong><\/p>\n One of the criminal lawyers I was talking to did have a bit of a solution, however. His strategy when a client tells him something that came from a bot that\u2019s wrong is to ask the client about the input they provided. He then tries to show them that with a proper input, asking the right question, a more accurate result can be obtained that\u2019s often, he says, in line with his advice. He also shows the client how by working with the prompt to suggest a desired result affects the outcome.\u00a0<\/p>\n Of course, successfully doing what this lawyer suggests takes time, work and effort. It also requires a good understanding of how AI works and how to construct prompts. But it\u2019s better than having an ongoing battle with the client over AI outputs. And, frankly, it also takes some courage since there\u2019s a risk that the bot may be right and the lawyer wrong. That\u2019s a reality that is uncomfortable.<\/p>\n But if so, so much the better. By constructing good prompts, AI sometimes comes up with good stuff and we owe it to our clients to be open to different views. Frankly, the lawyer should be checking their views and ideas against AI tools on the front end to be prepared for the client armed with AI-generated information.<\/p>\n I like the idea. It saves time. It reduces disruption. It breeds trust. I found over the years, for example, that if you can anticipate what a client thinks and will say and then show them why they are misguided, it enhances their confidence in you.\u00a0And using AI in an educational way moves the relationship more to one of a team with a lawyer, client, and AI tools all working together to get better results with less friction.\u00a0<\/p>\n And by the way, it squares with our ethical duty under the competency Rule 1.1 to know and understand the benefits and risks of technology. That applies not only to the technology we use as lawyers but the technology we can reasonably expect our clients will be using. And today, that\u2019s AI.\u00a0<\/p>\n Our clients, like virtually everyone else, are going to be consulting AI about their legal problems and what we are telling them. So we better be using AI as well. Not using tools our clients are using can lead to a very tense and unsatisfying attorney client relationship. Practicing law is hard enough, let\u2019s not make it harder.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s get real and meet our clients where they are. When the client walks into your office, be ready with your bot.<\/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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The post Meeting Clients Where They Are In An AI World<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n What do you do when your client knows more about the law and strategy than you do? Or at least thinks they do. That\u2019s the dilemma a lot of lawyers and legal professionals face these days. Clients come into the office armed with all sorts of advice and information they have obtained from publicly facing AI systems, information which is often just wrong.\u00a0<\/p>\n Let\u2019s Face It, Clients Are Using AI<\/strong><\/p>\n I was talking to a couple of criminal lawyers recently about this very subject. They say it happens all the time. And it\u2019s not just that the clients have information that may or may not be correct or even helpful. It\u2019s the confidence that the clients seem to have in that information. Which makes the lawyer\u2019s job that much harder when the information or recommended strategy is wrong. It takes time away from the case handling to constantly try to convince the client that the bot is off base. A bot that, of course, says things with such confidence.<\/p>\n I\u2019m sure it\u2019s the same on the civil side. The problem is not just one of convincing the client that what they got from the bot is bad, it\u2019s the seeds of mistrust that are being sown. The law and strategy are often gray areas. Many times, there is no clearly right answer, no foolproof strategy or guaranteed outcome. The best answers often stem from the lawyers\u2019 combined experience, judgment and know how, much of which can\u2019t be duplicated by a bot.<\/p>\n If I Had A Better Lawyer<\/strong><\/p>\n But when the client begins to wonder that the lawyer\u2019s recommendations are wrong based on what a bot tells them, the client starts to think: I would be getting a better result if I had a better lawyer. A lawyer who would do what ChatGPT recommends.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Add to this the fact that all too often AI tools will tell a person what it thinks the person wants to hear. And you have real and nagging problem. It\u2019s a problem that will lead to a lot of time and energy being spent trying to convince the client that they should be listeing to you, not ChatGPT.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s a problem not just at the beginning of the case when the client walks in the door. It runs throughout the case. If the client goes to ChatGPT before they see their lawyer, you can bet that they are going to go back to ChatGPT every time the lawyer tells them something they don\u2019t want to hear or don\u2019t believe. Which will lead to more and more arguments, distrust, and disruption for the human lawyer.\u00a0<\/p>\n Not to mention the fact that the client may be revealing attorney-client privileged information in its discussions with the bot. As I have previously discussed<\/a>, placing confidential material in a public AI platform risks waiving the privilege since it may no longer be considered confidential. It\u2019s hard enough for lawyers to use AI and avoid this waiver. It may be well-nigh impossible for a client trying to get the answer they want to hear to not tell the bot more than they should.<\/p>\n Using AI To Turn The Tables<\/strong><\/p>\n One of the criminal lawyers I was talking to did have a bit of a solution, however. His strategy when a client tells him something that came from a bot that\u2019s wrong is to ask the client about the input they provided. He then tries to show them that with a proper input, asking the right question, a more accurate result can be obtained that\u2019s often, he says, in line with his advice. He also shows the client how by working with the prompt to suggest a desired result affects the outcome.\u00a0<\/p>\n Of course, successfully doing what this lawyer suggests takes time, work and effort. It also requires a good understanding of how AI works and how to construct prompts. But it\u2019s better than having an ongoing battle with the client over AI outputs. And, frankly, it also takes some courage since there\u2019s a risk that the bot may be right and the lawyer wrong. That\u2019s a reality that is uncomfortable.<\/p>\n But if so, so much the better. By constructing good prompts, AI sometimes comes up with good stuff and we owe it to our clients to be open to different views. Frankly, the lawyer should be checking their views and ideas against AI tools on the front end to be prepared for the client armed with AI-generated information.<\/p>\n I like the idea. It saves time. It reduces disruption. It breeds trust. I found over the years, for example, that if you can anticipate what a client thinks and will say and then show them why they are misguided, it enhances their confidence in you.\u00a0And using AI in an educational way moves the relationship more to one of a team with a lawyer, client, and AI tools all working together to get better results with less friction.\u00a0<\/p>\n And by the way, it squares with our ethical duty under the competency Rule 1.1 to know and understand the benefits and risks of technology. That applies not only to the technology we use as lawyers but the technology we can reasonably expect our clients will be using. And today, that\u2019s AI.\u00a0<\/p>\n Our clients, like virtually everyone else, are going to be consulting AI about their legal problems and what we are telling them. So we better be using AI as well. Not using tools our clients are using can lead to a very tense and unsatisfying attorney client relationship. Practicing law is hard enough, let\u2019s not make it harder.<\/p>\n So let\u2019s get real and meet our clients where they are. When the client walks into your office, be ready with your bot.<\/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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n The post Meeting Clients Where They Are In An AI World<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" What do you do when your client knows more about the law and strategy than you do? Or at least thinks they do. That\u2019s the dilemma a lot of lawyers and legal professionals face these days. Clients come into the office armed with all sorts of advice and information they have obtained from publicly facing […]<\/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-154145","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\/154145","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=154145"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154145\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154145"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154145"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154145"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\n
\n