Aussies risk serious consequences by relying on AI for legal advice, lawyer warns

As these tools continue to generate unregulated and often incorrect legal advice, which can lead people to lose cases and face serious consequences, Singh warned that AI is creating legal risks unlike anything he has encountered in over a decade of practice.

“AI is creating far greater risks than anything I’ve witnessed in over 10 years of legal practice due to its unregulated nature,” he said.

“AI regularly provides incorrect legal advice, which has led to lay persons, as well as some lawyers, losing cases and facing significant repercussions.”

Singh drew a sharp contrast, highlighting that while a lawyer who gives incorrect advice would likely face disciplinary action from regulatory bodies, AI operates without any equivalent accountability or consequences.

“Had a lawyer provided incorrect legal advice, the lawyer would likely face professional disciplinary proceedings. AI does not have the same recourse,” he said.

VIEW ALL

Real-world consequences in court and beyond

Beyond simply receiving unqualified legal advice, Singh warned that relying on AI in active legal disputes can lead to severe real-world consequences that may escalate far beyond inconvenience or financial loss.

“The most serious real-world consequences people face when they rely on AI instead of qualified legal advice are either significant financial repercussions when using it in a civil claim, or receiving a criminal conviction and potential loss of their liberty (i.e., being sentenced to jail) when using it in criminal cases,” he said.

However, it is not just Australians turning to this technology for legal help, with lawyers themselves increasingly relying on AI-generated information when representing clients and preparing court submissions – a trend Singh warns is carrying serious risks inside the courtroom.

“The most alarming example of someone relying on AI-generated legal advice was actually a lawyer who used AI to generate their submissions,” he said.

“The AI used case citations that did not exist. The judge confronted the lawyer with this. Not only was the case lost, but the lawyer was ultimately referred to the Law Society for professional disciplinary proceedings.”

Why Australians are turning to AI

Even as serious concerns continue to emerge around relying on AI for legal advice instead of qualified lawyers, many Australians are still placing their trust in the technology and overlooking the potentially damaging risks that come with it.

Singh explained that Australians are continuing to flock to AI for legal advice, driven by the mistaken belief that the technology is always accurate and the appeal of fast, free legal guidance.

“Despite its risks, many Australians trust AI-generated legal advice because they are under the mistaken belief that it is always accurate,” he said.

“It is also a largely free service, so often people will try to use it so that they do not have to pay a lawyer.”

While the convenience and low cost of AI-generated legal advice may initially appeal to people, he warned many only realise the value of proper legal representation after their case has already unravelled – by which point the damage is often impossible to reverse.

“It is usually only when they lose their case that they realise they need a lawyer, but by then it is often too late,” he said.

Should AI have a place in legal practice?

While the full potential and long-term impact of AI in the legal profession remains uncertain, Singh urged consumers to avoid relying on the technology for legal matters, warning that at its current stage of development, AI-driven legal decision making is creating far more risk than benefit.

“At this stage, consumers should avoid using tools like ChatGPT for legal matters altogether, particularly for criminal law matters,” he said.

“While there are countless examples of AI resulting in cases being lost, there aren’t any examples of AI winning cases against actual lawyers.”