The Pitfalls of Relying on ChatGPT for Legal Advice
10 Reasons Why AI Can’t (and Shouldn’t) Replace Your Lawyer
In an age where information is more accessible than ever, it’s no surprise that many individuals are turning to AI platforms like ChatGPT to answer their legal questions. With its conversational tone, rapid responses, and wealth of generalized knowledge, ChatGPT seems like the perfect resource for quick, affordable legal guidance. But while the technology is impressive, relying on AI tools for legal advice comes with serious risks—some of which could leave you exposed, misinformed, or even in breach of your own legal obligations.
As legal professionals, we’ve begun to see a troubling trend: people are acting on AI-generated legal suggestions without understanding the nuances, limitations, or jurisdiction-specific rules that govern their rights and obligations. Here’s what you need to know before you let an algorithm guide your next legal decision.
1. AI Lacks Legal Accountability
ChatGPT is not a licensed legal practitioner. It doesn’t have a Law Society number. It doesn’t carry professional liability insurance. And it certainly won’t be appearing in court with you.
When you rely on advice from a human lawyer, you’re not just getting information—you’re getting judgment, ethical obligations, fiduciary responsibility and a duty of care. If a lawyer gives negligent advice, you may have grounds to hold them accountable. Not so with ChatGPT. If the advice is incorrect, outdated, or dangerously oversimplified, the burden (and the consequences) are entirely yours to bear.
2. Context Is Everything—and AI Doesn’t Have It
Tools like ChatGPT do not know your full story. They have no access to the nuances of your work environment, your tenancy, or the specific terms of your settlement agreement. While AI can offer general insights, it does not account for the documents, jurisdictional rules, procedural timelines, or personal dynamics that shape real legal disputes.
Recently my colleague at Osuji & Smith Lawyers, Nonye Opara, shared the following example: A client relied on a legal opinion generated from an AI search about child support when parents have equal parenting time. The client assumed they would not have to pay child support. However, the AI-generated opinion failed to consider critical factors, such as the significant income disparity between the parents and the fact that the child has special needs—both of which could substantially affect the determination of child support, despite equal parenting time.
Context is everything! Legal advice requires more than matching keywords to statutes. It requires a thorough review of facts, often involving confidential communications, competing evidence, and a strategic lens that adapts to evolving circumstances. Without context, even a legally accurate statement can be dangerously misleading.
3. Jurisdiction-Specific Laws Are Often Overlooked
You may know this, but many do not know that the law is not uniform across Canada, let alone globally. Employment standards, tenancy rights, family law procedures, and even civil litigation rules can differ dramatically between provinces and territories.
Another colleague of mine at Osuji & Smith Lawyers, Sukhcreet Kaur, shared her experience as follows: “I had a client who began using ChatGPT to better understand her legal case, which at first seemed like a positive step toward staying informed. However, it quickly became counterproductive. She started sending me multiple six-page emails filled with AI-generated content based on incorrect or incomplete facts. In several instances, she omitted the applicable jurisdiction, rendering the research inapplicable. In others, the AI had provided fictitious case law that appeared to perfectly match her situation—but was entirely fabricated. On another occasion, after receiving a hearing transcript from the court, she input the entire document into ChatGPT and sent me its generated analysis, stating this would help reduce her legal costs. Ironically, it had the opposite effect. Not only did it lead to longer communications and additional time spent reviewing unusable content, but it also raised serious concerns about confidentiality. By pasting sensitive legal information into a public tool, she unknowingly risked compromising her own privacy.”
AI can be a helpful tool when used responsibly, but it should never replace proper legal advice or be relied upon as a source of verified legal research—especially without context or professional guidance. Moreover,ChatGPT may provide a response that’s valid in Ontario but completely off-base in Alberta. For instance, it might suggest that employees in Alberta are entitled to severance after three months of work—a concept tied more closely to Ontario’s Employment Standards Act than to Alberta’s more limited entitlements. Or it may cite American legal concepts such as ‘at-will employment,’ which has no application in Canadian employment law and could dangerously mislead users about their rights or an employer’s obligations. Worse, it doesn’t always flag this distinction clearly—leading users to rely on advice that doesn’t apply to them at all.
4. It Can Create a False Sense of Confidence
The danger with tools like ChatGPT is not that they’re entirely wrong—it’s that they often sound right. The language is polished, the reasoning appears sound, and the tone is reassuring. But just because a response is coherent doesn’t make it legally correct.
People often come to lawyers only after something has gone terribly wrong. “I thought I was within my rights” is a common refrain—until they learn the hard way that legal disputes hinge on details they didn’t consider, deadlines they missed, or misinterpretations they didn’t realize they’d made.
5. AI Tools Can Inadvertently Breach Confidentiality
Many users don’t realize that inputting sensitive details into a platform like ChatGPT could be a breach of confidentiality. Depending on how the tool is configured your data could be stored, analyzed, or reused for model training. That’s not a risk you want to take when dealing with employment issues, family breakdowns, immigration matters, or corporate legal issues.
6. There’s No Substitute for Strategic Thinking
Lawyers don’t just interpret rules. At Osuji & Smith Lawyers we weigh risks, anticipate consequences, manage evidence, and negotiate outcomes. As lawyers we factor in human behavior, institutional culture, and the real-world implications of taking one legal route over another. It’s not just about what the law permits—it’s about what’s practical, proven, and in your best interest.
Consider a workplace dismissal. ChatGPT might tell you that you’re entitled to notice or pay in lieu. But what it can’t do is assess the tone of your termination letter, the power dynamics at play, or whether it’s worth negotiating a reference letter alongside your severance. It won’t prepare you for the emotional toll of litigation or advise you on how to approach mediation in a way that preserves your reputation—or your mental health.
Interestingly, during a recent discussion with Charles Osuji (Managing Partner at Osuji & Smith Lawyers), we reflected on a situation where a client attempted to use legal advice obtained during a consultation to draft their own letter to the opposing party with the assistance of ChatGPT, hoping to avoid legal expenses. I shared that, “while the letter might sound good, it is not my voice, nor does it reflect the strategy aligned with my legal assessment of the matter.”
As the Managing Lawyer, Employment Law division at Osuji & Smith Lawyers, this feedback continues to be consistent from the lawyers consulting with clients on Employment and other matters.
Strategic thinking involves far more than simply applying the law. It is about using the law as a tool to achieve the best outcome—legally, financially, and personally. That is something only a human advocate, who understands your goals and sees the broader picture, can deliver.
7. Legal Information Is Not Legal Advice
One of the most important distinctions in the legal world is the difference between legal information and legal advice. ChatGPT can provide general information about legal topics—it can tell you what a term means, what a statute says, or what the general process might look like. But it stops short of telling you what you should do.
Legal advice is tailored, confidential, and grounded in a review of your specific circumstances. It involves interpretation, risk assessment, and often—judgment calls. If you’re facing a legal issue, you don’t need broad explanations. You need someone who will take the time to understand the nuances of your situation, your goals, your timeline, and your risk tolerance—and craft a strategy around that.
That’s not a disclaimer. It’s a legal truth.
8. AI Can Amplify Bias and Misinformation
Despite its advanced capabilities, ChatGPT tools similar are trained on data that may include outdated laws, biased interpretations, or incomplete legal concepts. It doesn’t always cite its sources. It may not distinguish between credible case law and controversial commentary. And when it “hallucinates”—that is, generates convincing but false information—it doesn’t warn you that it has done so.
There have been multiple reported instances of ChatGPT citing so-called “phantom” case law—cases that sound plausible and follow conventional citation formats but do not actually exist. A recent CBC article out of British Columbia highlighted the case of a self-represented individual who relied on Microsoft Copilot for legal research in a condo dispute. The AI tool generated ten case citations—nine of which were completely fabricated. Though the citations looked legitimate, and the summaries appeared credible, none could be found in any legal database. The individual’s hope to use AI-generated information to support their argument failed.
In the legal field, relying on misinformation can cost you everything. Whether it’s filing deadlines, evidentiary standards, or procedural requirements, precision matters. And trusting an AI that has no accountability—and no obligation to tell the truth—is a dangerous gamble.
9. Legal Matters Require Human Judgment
Most legal issues can’t be solved with a copy-and-paste answer. Immigration appeals, constructive dismissals, contractual disputes, human rights claims— each is as unique as a fingerprint and they all involve multiple layers of analysis, often under tight deadlines and emotionally charged conditions.
When you have a legal issue, you need more than just information. You need a steady hand. Someone to help you pause, reflect, move and sometimes maneuver deliberately toward a solution. Someone who knows when to push, when to settle, and when to call in reinforcements.
AI doesn’t make judgment calls. Lawyers do.
10 Law Is Human, and So Is Good Counsel
The convenience of ChatGPT is real. However, the practice of law demands a human touch—not just cold logic or automation. Legal interpretation requires human judgment, ethical awareness, empathy, and nuanced reasoning. That’s why relying on tools like ChatGPT without proper legal vetting can be costly.
In law, accuracy, strategy, and timing often make the difference between resolution and regret. These are not factors that ChatGPT can assess or adapt to. Only a qualified legal professional can weigh those elements in context—and guide you accordingly.
If you’re navigating a legal issue, always consult with a qualified lawyer. Bring your questions, your documents, and even your AI-generated ideas to the table. But don’t act until you have a lawyer’s guidance—one informed by training, context, and ethical responsibility.
Your lawyer isn’t just another opinion—they’re your advocate, your strategist, and your safest path forward.
Need Legal Guidance? We’re here to help. Book a consult with Osuji & Smith Lawyers to get legal advice that’s strategic, personalized, and grounded in the realities of your case.
Author: Christie Eze
