Your client used AI to Learn about the Law – What next?

In an article for The American Bar Association, Kim, Lahey & Killough firm founder Doug Kim discusses the growing use of AI tools by clients and how it is reshaping the attorney-client relationship, bringing both challenges and opportunities.

As clients increasingly rely on AI for legal information, attorneys must understand how these tools function in order to effectively address any inaccuracies or outdated information that clients may present. At the same time, by embracing AI themselves, attorneys can not only improve their practice but also better meet evolving client expectations and strengthen their role as trusted advisors. An excerpt is below. ABA members may read the entire article here.

AI summary:

As clients increasingly use generative AI to understand litigation, attorneys face a pivotal shift in managing expectations, communication, and authority. A case study illustrates how an engaged client used AI to research legal concepts, evaluate motions, and suggest strategies—prompting both challenges and opportunities. Attorneys who understand AI’s capabilities and limitations can better guide clients, clarify misunderstandings, and leverage these tools to foster transparency and collaboration. Rather than resisting AI, lawyers should embrace informed dialogue, set boundaries early, and use client-generated content as teaching moments. Failure to engage risks loss of trust, communication breakdowns, and even malpractice exposure. With technical literacy and proactive strategy, attorneys can transform AI-informed clients into empowered partners, reaffirming the indispensable role of legal counsel while embracing the evolving landscape of client education through technology.

Excerpt:

Clients are becoming increasingly sophisticated in how they engage with attorneys. We have seen clients turning to generative AI to improve their understanding of litigation, a trend that, while assisting the client feel more confident and engaged in the process, is creating some issue for the practicing attorney.

An Example

In a complex commercial litigation matter, the client, an experienced business owner but not a legal professional, sought to gain a better understanding of the case. Rather than relying solely on attorney updates, the client began using generative AI to:

• Research laws and cases
• Understand actual and potential causes of action and defenses
• Verify that the legal strategy being executed aligned with general legal principles

Using accessible, public, conversational AI tools, the client submitting prompt to the AI agent such as:

• “What is a breach of fiduciary duty?”
• “What defenses exist to a tortious interference claim?”
• “What happens after a motion to dismiss is denied?”
• “Can you analyze this complaint and let me know if these are winning arguments?”
• “What are my chances of winning?”
• “How much should this cost?”

Typically, the AI agent provided clear, plain-English explanations with reference to legal research information, providing the client with foundation knowledge and context for the decisions their legal team was making. With this knowledge, the client felt empowered and began “helping: the lawyer with the case.” The client began suggesting legal theories and strategies and engaged in lengthy discussions with the lawyer about the mechanics of litigation using the information gained from the AI Agent. As you can imagine the attorney was not effectively able to have these discussions without a detail explanation of the legal theories, strategies, case law, and litigation process, mostly to handle the newfound education of the client.

Bridging the Information Gap

In this example, the client was unintentionally substituting AI for legal advice and sought to assist the attorney with the ”helpful” AI generated information. For example, after receiving a litigation update about a motion being filed, the client used AI to analyze the motion, explain the motion, understand the standard of review and how courts ruled in similar situations.

The client “ran” the legal documents through its AI agent and asked the AI engine to “grade” the legal work and to analyze the legal work for completeness. The client then questioned why a certain counterclaim was not being raised that were suggested by AI. As it turned out, the attorney had considered these claims but determined they were not viable based on specific jurisdictional factors, something the AI could not do.

This engagement has the potential to disrupt the attorney-client relationship, but if properly managed, it can strengthen it. The client was seeking to be more engaged and asked questions based on a general understanding of the law which, while being more time consuming, resulted in better communications and helped the client feel more in control.

While a lawyer should not provide work products just to be graded by AI, understanding the client needs, the technology used and the basis for the activity by the client can strengthen the relationship. Unfortunately, for the bar, this requires us to become knowledgeable about this newest tool. While I have a computer science background, I understand that most of the bar is English, History, Political Science majors that may not have such a background. But, it can be learned.

First, an attorney with sufficient knowledge of the tool is better equipped to understand the underlying algorithms, data structures, and computational logic that drive generative AI tools. The attorney needs to have a basic understanding of the reliability of AI-generated outputs, ensuring they align with case-specific and jurisdictional requirements. There needs to be an understanding of the limitations and inaccuracies in AI responses that a layperson or non-technical attorney may overlook. Attorney’s need to understand that clients are adopting AI must faster than the legal industry.

By understanding AI tools and how clients are using them, the attorney can effectively translate client input into actionable questions for the AI, ensuring more precise outputs. Attorneys can also become better at integrating AI into their litigation strategies to complements the legal process, not disrupt it. The attorney can explain to the client what the response form the AI may not be exactly what should be presented to a court, used in legal filings and other weaknesses of AI.

The full article is available to American Bar Association members here.