Law news

This term, I've been reflecting on a client we offered a last-minute slot after an appointment came up. She reached out to our housing clinic with a dispute dating back to 2022, arriving with nine legal grounds: late deposit protection, missing safety certificates, furniture removal, and noise disturbances, among others. Her approach was clear and confident, but the influence of AI was hard to miss.

Was the advice completely wrong? No. The issues were real, the language confident, the structure logical. But as we worked through her case, the cracks began to show. Some advice was incomplete, some subtly but significantly off, and some had given her expectations the law was unlikely to meet. Out of nine claims, only one remained feasible: a claim for the deposit.

One Case, a Thousand Like It

The power imbalance in housing disputes has always been stark. Landlords routinely have access to solicitors, letting agents, and years of institutional knowledge. Their tenants, by contrast, are often navigating the legal system for the first time, under stress, with little money and no professional support. Data from the Law Society indicates that 44% of the UK lack access to local housing advice providers.

Into this gap has stepped AI. A 2025 poll by The Legal Director found that 50% of Brits would turn to AI over a traditional solicitor, an entirely logical response to a system that has left many with nowhere else to turn. And in some respects, this is a genuine levelling of the playing field. Where once a renter might not have known their landlord was legally obliged to protect their deposit within thirty days, AI can tell them that in seconds. The information gap between landlord and tenant has narrowed which is a real win for the modern renter.

But Information Is Not Advice

The issue is that my client didn't just need information. She needed judgment. She needed someone to look at the full picture and tell her not just what the law says, but what the law could actually do for her. The AI had found everything. It had understood nothing.

A landlord's solicitor knows which arguments will hold, which courts are sympathetic, and which claims aren't worth pursuing. AI gives renters access to legal information while landlords retain access to legal strategy. The gap has shifted, but it has not closed.

There's also a risk that deserves its own attention: unlike conversations with a solicitor, anything shared with ChatGPT is not legally protected and could, in theory, be used as evidence in court.

Support, Not Substitute

None of this means we should get out the pitchforks. The Ministry of Justice's Justice AI Unit is currently exploring how AI can genuinely improve access to justice, including chatbots that could help people understand their rights and resolve common legal issues without needing to speak to an adviser or go to court. Citizens Advice's Caddy tool points to what responsible deployment looks like: AI that helps advisers find accurate answers more quickly, freeing them to focus on the judgment that only a person can provide.

And that judgment is precisely what my client needed. Her landlord had a solicitor. She had ChatGPT. That distance isn't just technological. It's a question of who the legal system is built to serve, and whether we're serious about changing that.

Back to news list