Introduction
We often hear that artificial intelligence will replace lawyers within a few years. Some people believe this, while others mock the idea. I did not want to settle the matter based on impressions, so I decided to conduct a simple experiment: I asked a lawyer and an AI some of the same questions, then compared their answers in terms of speed, accuracy, and practical usefulness.
Test One: Explaining a Lease Agreement
I started with a task that many people encounter in their daily lives. A lease agreement is full of clauses that we often sign without reading. I provided both sides with the same contract and asked them to explain its provisions in simple terms.
Artificial Intelligence: It provided, within seconds, a clear and approximate explanation, in language that was not easy for an ordinary person to understand.
The Lawyer: The lawyer took longer, but the explanation was clearer and highlighted several important points in the contract, such as the penalty for failing to pay the monthly rent. Missing this point could have cost me a significant amount of money.
Test Two: Drafting a Formal Notice
Here, I imagined a familiar situation: a company had failed to deliver my order by the agreed deadline, and I wanted a formal notice that would protect my rights. I asked both sides to draft a formal notice.
Artificial Intelligence: It produced a good, reasonably organized draft, but it was mainly useful as a starting point.
The Lawyer: The lawyer drafted a stronger notice from a legal perspective, referred to relevant legal provisions, set a clear deadline for compliance, and explained what would result from failing to comply. These kinds of details give the notice greater strength if the matter eventually reaches court.
Test Three: A Complex Legal Issue
This is where the fundamental difference became clear. I presented both sides with a commercial dispute involving a company and multiple parties.
Artificial Intelligence: It provided a confident answer and cited several legal provisions. However, when I tried to verify them, I could not find some of them. This is where the problem lies: the answer sounded convincing, but I could not establish the validity of part of its foundation.
The Lawyer: The lawyer responded with a phrase that might initially seem disappointing: “It depends on the circumstances.” The lawyer then asked me for additional information and documents before giving an opinion.
At first, I felt that the AI was more useful because it was decisive. But after thinking about it, I realized that the lawyer’s hesitation was actually professional integrity. A lawyer does not give an opinion before knowing all the facts—not a potentially wrong opinion in a case that could cost the client a great deal.
Conclusion
Artificial intelligence is a useful tool for initial understanding. It saves time, removes ambiguity, and allows you to walk into a lawyer’s office knowing what to ask about. However, it can make mistakes and cite provisions that do not exist, while sounding completely confident.
As for the lawyer, they are familiar with the laws of your country and the details of your case, and they bear responsibility for their professional opinion.
In my view, the best approach is to combine both: use artificial intelligence for preparation and initial groundwork, and the lawyer for reliance and execution.