The client already arrives at the firm with ChatGPT's answer: how to turn improvised research into working material
Clients now consult AI before their lawyer. The key is not to dismiss the answer but to use it as the starting point of the advice.
The scene is becoming common in any law firm: the client sits down, takes out their phone and reads aloud the answer an AI has given them — the deadline to claim, the applicable article and even a judgment or two that, according to the tool, back their position. The first consultation no longer starts from zero. Lawyer Ángel Rey addresses in an Economist & Jurist op-ed how to face this change, with a starting conclusion: it has much more to do with communication than with technology.
The defensive mistake
The instinctive reaction is usually defensive: discard the answer, recall that a machine is not a lawyer and move on to the matter. Understandable, but a mistake, Rey warns: the client who has researched on their own wants to understand, and dismissing their search amounts to telling them their effort is worthless, which erodes trust before any work begins. The alternative is to use that answer as working material, and the op-ed proposes four guidelines.
The op-ed's four guidelines
The first is to validate what is correct and correct with basis what is not. Generative tools are often right on the general and fail on the specific: they cite repealed statutes, mix regimes from different countries or, in the worst case, invent rulings that do not exist — a real risk: false AI-generated case law has already ended in sanctions in several courts. Pointing out each error with its source demonstrates, in a minute, the value of professional advice better than any argument.
The second is to explain the why, not just the what: if the client already has an answer, what they need from the lawyer is the reasoning — why that rule applies or not to their case, what risks each option involves and what a court would do with their specific facts. The op-ed recalls that Spain's Organic Law 5/2024 on the Right of Defence reinforces the client's right to receive clear information about their matter, and that fulfilling that duty today also means translating and checking what the client has already read.
The third is to highlight what the tool does not offer. What is told to a lawyer is protected by professional secrecy; what is typed into a chatbot is subject to each provider's terms of use. The lawyer is personally accountable for their advice and must have professional liability cover; the tool assumes no responsibility for what it says. Above all, the lawyer knows the full facts of the case, which is where matters are won or lost.
The fourth is to be transparent about the firm's own use of AI: explaining what these tools are used for, how their output is reviewed and what confidentiality and data-protection safeguards apply, under the GDPR, builds trust; hiding it puts that trust at risk the day the client finds out.
The firm's communication also plays a role
The change also affects the firm's public communication: if the client asks an AI first, the content the firm publishes on its website, on LinkedIn or in the press is part of what that tool can find and summarise. A clear, well-structured article signed by an identifiable professional has a better chance of shaping the answer the next client will receive. Rey's optimistic reading: AI has democratised access to legal information, raising the starting level of many conversations; what remains scarce is judgment. The client will keep arriving with phone in hand, and the question is whether the lawyer will know how to turn that answer into the start of a good conversation.
Source: Economist & Jurist, op-ed by Ángel Rey (30 October 2026), verified 3 November 2026.
Related links
Fuentes
- economistjurist.es. Accessed 3 November 2026.
The specific data in this article come from the official sources cited.
