The launch of a new ChatGPT model in August made headlines. What is essentially a computer software upgrade would not usually be deemed newsworthy, but we live in revolutionary times. AI is daily transforming the way we work. As employment lawyers, we are now seeing this firsthand.

In the past few months, we at Constantine Law have witnessed how AI is revolutionising the speed of communication in legal disputes. In one recent case, we were called upon to act for a client alleging a breach of a restrictive covenant in their former employee’s employment contract. We prepared and sent a detailed letter of claim, asserting the specific contractual breaches and demanding signed undertakings to prevent injunctive action being taken.

Speed of response

In the past, the recipient of the letter would have instructed lawyers to review the case and prepare a considered reply. Typically they might have taken three to four days to respond to a matter of this complexity. On this occasion, we received a comprehensive response within 90 minutes. It would have been impossible to instruct and brief a lawyer on the facts within 90 minutes, still less possible for a lawyer to provide a considered response in that time-frame. Despite the former employee’s claim to have “taken legal advice”, the response bore all the hallmarks of AI-generated content.

Although on the surface it looked professional and was certainly created quickly, the response was nonsense. It mischaracterised key issues, failed to engage with important and specific facts, and contained several inaccuracies. As a result, the response was worse than no response, at all, and significantly increased the litigation risk for the former employee. We would have been able to run rings around his claims if the matter had been taken further.

False information from AI

An alarming study by Stanford University last year found that general-purpose AI tools tend to “hallucinate” (make up) false information up to 80% of the time and even legal-specific AI models still hallucinate in at least one in six legal queries. It needs a legal professional to spot these mistakes; in short, lay clients don’t know what they don’t know. In order to get a more accurate response, the AI tool requires fact specific/personal data. However, this could breach privacy rules under the GDPR if that data can identify a living person, directly or indirectly.

Let’s be clear: AI is not the enemy. It is a powerful tool that we, as legal professionals, are learning to use: many of the magic circle law firms are racing to tool up in the AI arms race and build their own AI systems. With a recent survey by Lexis Nexis showing that the number of legal professionals regularly using AI has doubled in the last 12 months, and with only 15% of those surveyed saying they had no plans to use it in future, it is obviously here to stay. But it must be treated as an assistant, not a substitute.

The future?

Earlier this year, in a legal first, the Solicitors Regulation Authority authorised Garfield.AI, a law firm whose services are solely provided through AI. But this firm is very limited in its business model – it can provide letters and support to recover debt claims up to £10,000 only. And as it is only available to claimants – one assumes that the nuance of writing a defence still requires human input. In a way, rather than showing the scope of AI, it is highlighting its current limitations.

So there are risks in using AI, particularly when untrained individuals rely on AI tools to ‘self-lawyer’. Just as Google is not a doctor, AI is not (yet) a lawyer. Caveat emptor.

Can AI generate an initial, generic response? Yes. However, the trick then is in moulding that response to the specific circumstances at hand. This applies in legal letters. It will also probably apply in contracts. We’re still going to need people who understand the facts, the nuance, the strategic implications. We are still going to need lawyers.

So, at present, AI is fast on the draw – but runs the risk of missing the target.

John Hayes is the Managing Partner of Constantine Law. This article first appeared in Legal Futures 26.08.25