Started By
Message
re: Chatgpt for legal advice
Posted on 9/17/26 at 10:15 am to lsufball19
Posted on 9/17/26 at 10:15 am to lsufball19
quote:
lsufball19
Have you tested any of the AI tools developed specifically for lawyers (e.g., Harvey, GC AI, Ivo, etc.)?
They're getting much better at redlining contracts (assuming you take the time to create a playbook for it to use), but I still haven't been able to save any time using them for that purpose because I have to spend so much time reviewing the suggested edits.
Even when I use them for legal research, I still have to confirm all the citations, so again, doesn't really save any time right now.
However, I have found the tools somewhat useful for very basic tasks (e.g., identifying high, medium, and low risks in clickwrap terms based on a playbook I have created).
1
Posted on 9/17/26 at 10:20 am to Sl0thstronautEsq
quote:
They're getting much better at redlining contracts (assuming you take the time to create a playbook for it to use), but I still haven't been able to save any time using them for that purpose because I have to spend so much time reviewing the suggested edits.
Even when I use them for legal research, I still have to confirm all the citations, so again, doesn't really save any time right now.
This is my issue. There are a couple of guys at my firm who are obsessed with trying to find ways for AI to do things for them but I honestly think they waste more time trying to figure out how to do that than they actually end up saving in the aggregate.
I typically use it when I'm dealing with statutes/issues I haven't had to use before. I'll ask it "please find me a statute that deals with this issue." Then I'll go to the source material and take it from there. It sometimes does find good case law and I do like how you can ask questions like a human being unlike the prompts on westlaw. But it is wrong, a lot, regarding cases it cites.
Who knows, I guess in should get better over time, but I'm just not ready or willing right now to really integrate it into my work to any meaningful level.
Posted on 9/17/26 at 10:22 am to lsufball19
quote:
Yeah, it's wildly wrong so much. I had a convoluted issue with a trust I was trying to find case law on and was striking out on westlaw. Asked chatgpt for some authority on the subject. Every case it cited had nothing to do with the issue, and every time it said "you're right, thank you for correcting me, here's another case." Finally, it just gave me a statute that wasn't helpful at all. It's wild to me how many lazy attorneys out there continued to get sanctioned for letting chatgpt draft briefs for them without any vetting going on.
Same experience as I’ve had.
Posted on 9/17/26 at 10:27 am to lsufball19
quote:
This is my issue. There are a couple of guys at my firm who are obsessed with trying to find ways for AI to do
My answer from accounting is this:
If it’s routine and time-consuming work that you can do on autopilot, that’s AI work.
If it’s deep thought and decision-making, you can have AI help but you will need ti be deeply engaged, such as, “Give me all the cases meeting parameters a, b and c.”
AI is not able to provide partner-level advice and it is often spectacularly wrong.
What it can do is increase the amount of time you spend providing the highest level (and most easily monetized) value of services.
Posted on 9/17/26 at 10:29 am to lsufball19
quote:
There are a couple of guys at my firm who are obsessed with trying to find ways for AI to do things for them but I honestly think they waste more time trying to figure out how to do that than they actually end up saving in the aggregate.
I'm in-house and the C-Suite is pushing EVERYONE to use AI. We won the battle that ChatGPT isn't appropriate for legal work, but now we're experimenting with pretty much every AI tool that's supposedly designed for legal teams. Sitting in these demos and then trialing all the products has been a huge waste of time so far.
Basically this:
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News