Why ChatGPT Is Not Helping Your Legal Case

If you are involved in a legal case, chances are you are stressed, overwhelmed, and looking for ways to feel more informed and prepared. That instinct makes sense. Many clients are now turning to tools like ChatGPT to summarize their case, organize their thoughts, or research legal issues. On the surface, this can feel proactive and helpful. In practice, it often does the opposite. This post is not about criticizing curiosity or discouraging engagement. We want informed clients. We welcome questions. But it is important to understand the real limits of current AI tools, especially in legal matters, and how using them the wrong way can actually slow your case down and increase your legal fees.

Why AI Summaries Create Problems in Legal Cases

Large language models like ChatGPT are not legal experts. They do not understand your case, the full factual record, or the procedural posture you are in. They do not know what evidence is admissible, what facts are legally relevant, or what details matter most at a given stage of litigation. Instead, they do something very different. They generate text that sounds confident and coherent, whether it is correct or not. That creates several problems.

First, accuracy is a serious issue. AI tools routinely misstate the law, invent legal standards, misapply statutes, or confuse similar concepts. This is not a rare edge case. It happens often, especially in state specific law, nuanced procedural issues, and fact intensive disputes. When a client sends us AI generated legal analysis, we cannot assume any of it is correct. Every sentence has to be independently verified.

Second, volume becomes the enemy. Many clients use AI to produce long narratives or summaries that run hundreds or even thousands of pages. Reviewing that material takes significant attorney time. More importantly, it is time spent filtering and correcting content rather than advancing your case. That time is billable, and it rarely produces value.

Third, AI often distorts what matters. These tools tend to flatten facts, overemphasize emotional language, and focus on issues that feel important rather than those that are legally decisive. That can unintentionally steer attention away from the strongest arguments and evidence in your case.

Finally, there is a trust problem. When content is clearly AI-generated, we have to question where it came from and how it was created. Was it based on complete facts? Were key details left out? Was it influenced by assumptions that are simply wrong? That uncertainty makes it harder, not easier, to rely on the information.

Why This Can Cost You More Money

Many clients assume that sending AI summaries will save time and reduce legal fees. In reality, it usually increases them. When we receive AI-generated material, we cannot skim it. We have to read it carefully, identify errors, separate fact from fiction, and then cross check it against the actual record. That process often takes longer than reviewing a concise, factual update written in your own words. In other words, you are paying for us to undo the work of a tool that was never designed to help your case in the first place.

What Actually Helps

If your goal is to be helpful and efficient, there are much better ways to do that. Start with facts, not analysis. If there are new developments, write them out plainly. Who did what, when, and where. Stick to what you personally observed or experienced. Be concise. Bullet points are often better than paragraphs. Short timelines are better than narratives. If something feels important to you, flag it, but do not try to argue the law around it. Ask questions instead of providing conclusions. If you are confused about an issue or something you read online, ask us directly. That gives us the chance to explain how the law actually applies to your situation. Let us do the legal analysis. That is what you are hiring us for. We know which facts matter, which arguments are viable, and which issues are red herrings. AI does not.

A Note on Using AI at All

This does not mean you can never use AI. Some clients find it helpful for organizing personal notes, drafting timelines for their own reference, or generating questions they want to ask their attorney (but don’t forget that any info you put in is essentially public!). Used as a thinking tool rather than an authority, it can be fine. The problem arises when AI output is treated as reliable legal analysis or submitted as part of the case itself. At this stage, AI is a powerful writing tool, not a trustworthy legal advisor.

The Bottom Line

We understand the urge to do something, anything, when you are in the middle of a legal dispute. But more information is not always better information. Clear, accurate, and relevant facts are what move cases forward. If you are ever unsure whether something is helpful to send, ask first. We would much rather guide you toward what will actually help than bill you for sorting through pages of material that will not help you. If you have questions about this, or want to talk about the most effective way to communicate about your case, we are always happy to do that.