ATTORNEYS WEST & ROSSOUW

Attorneys, Notaries & Conveyancers

From the Horse’s Mouth: “Should You Use AI for Legal Advice?”

February 25, 2025

“If you didn’t hear it from the horse’s mouth, it came from the other end of the horse.” (Anon)

The rapid rise of AI is hard to ignore. DeepSeek’s AI assistant, only launched on 10 January this year, has grown to rival ChatGPT in popularity, making it the most widely used AI language model at the time of writing. But DeepSeek isn’t alone in the race – major players like Copilot, Gemini 2.0, OpenAI o3, Meta AI, Grok, Anthropic and the like are all vying for our attention. The competition is fierce, and we’re spoilt for choice!

With AI becoming an integral part of so many aspects of our lives, it’s no surprise that some of us might be tempted to turn to these models for legal help. We decided to ask ChatGPT itself how it feels about that, and what follows is its unedited response. Direct from the horse’s mouth!

Our question to ChatGPT

“With the current high levels of public interest in using AI to answer questions, would you recommend that people without legal training use AI to answer legal questions and to provide legal advice on specific topics?”

ChatGPT said:

“AI is a powerful tool, but when it comes to legal advice, caution is essential. While AI can summarize laws, explain legal concepts, and assist with research, it cannot replace the expertise of a qualified attorney.

The risks of relying on AI for legal advice

Lack of context: AI provides general information, but legal issues are highly fact-specific. What applies in one case may not apply in another.
Potential for inaccuracy: AI models pull from vast datasets but do not verify legal updates, jurisdictional differences, or recent court rulings. This can lead to outdated or incorrect advice.
No professional liability: If AI provides incorrect guidance, there is no recourse. Attorneys, on the other hand, are professionally accountable for the advice they give.

Ethical and confidentiality concerns: Sharing sensitive legal matters with AI platforms can pose risks, as they do not guarantee attorney-client privilege or data security.

Where AI can help

Basic legal information: Understanding general legal principles, terminology, and procedures.
Document review assistance: AI can help summarize contracts or flag potential issues but should not replace a lawyer’s review.
Legal research: AI speeds up finding relevant case law or statutes, but attorneys must verify accuracy and applicability.

The key takeaways

AI is a useful tool for research and general legal understanding, but not for personalised legal advice.
Only a qualified attorney can provide case-specific guidance, apply legal reasoning, and ensure compliance with current laws.
For critical legal matters, always consult a professional – mistakes can be costly.

In short, AI can support legal education but should never be a substitute for expert legal counsel. If in doubt, always seek professional advice.”

A last thought or two from us…

In a South African context, we have found inaccuracy to be even more of a risk than it is internationally – no doubt because of the relatively limited online coverage our local laws enjoy. For example, a test question on a relatively simple aspect of South African law resulted in the bot quoting New Zealand legislation back to the asker! What’s more, there are already media reports of South African lawyers finding themselves in hot water after not thoroughly checking technical AI output (and rightly so!).

Whatever you use AI for, be really careful that its answers are factually and technically accurate before relying on them. As ChatGPT itself says under every question field: “ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.”

AI is a useful tool that may be able to point you in the right direction, but it can never replace a human being – let alone a qualified lawyer. Relying on AI for legal advice could be the worst decision you ever make.

Disclaimer: The information provided herein should not be used or relied on as professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact us for specific and detailed advice.

Share the Post:

Bodies Corporate and HOAs: Apply Your Rules With Common Sense, or Else

The administrators of residential complexes tread a fine line. They must implement and enforce conduct rules for the good of the complex as a whole, but without unjustly impinging on the constitutional rights of individuals.
A recent Supreme Court of Appeal decision, granting a sight-impaired owner a limited right to exclusive use of a section of common area for his washing machine, has brought this balancing act into sharp focus. We discuss the reasoning behind that outcome, with some suggestions on how bodies corporate and homeowners’ associations should approach this sort of situation in future.

Bad Manager or Workplace Bully? Where the Law Draws the Line

Not every difficult manager is a workplace bully, and not every uncomfortable workplace is an unlawful one. But where exactly does the law draw the line?
A 2023 Labour Court judgment tackles that question head-on, with important lessons for both employers and employees. If you’ve ever wondered whether a harassment claim would succeed against your employer, or whether your management style exposes your business to legal risk, the answer may surprise you.

She Fell Out of a Safari Vehicle: When Disclaimers Fail

Think a disclaimer will protect your business from liability? Not so fast. Our courts have made it clear that a disclaimer is only enforceable where consent is properly obtained, risks are clearly disclosed, and the wording is specific enough to cover the conduct in question.
These principles matter for businesses operating in high-risk environments, and for consumers who may assume they have signed away more rights than they actually have. A case brought by a woman who fell from her safari vehicle in Botswana illustrates this point.