Note (2025-12-09 06:31)

“LLMs Make Legal Advice Lossy”

It is a totally normal part of a functioning lawyer’s day to mentally scale levels of abstraction like this, picking and choosing where to stand the client, what to point at, and what to leave out.

Getting good at neither coddling nor firehosing clients is a significant part of the difference between being a good law student and being a good lawyer. If you learn all the rules, exceptions, and citations and stop there, you are at best fully qualified to practice law badly. Practicing law is often partly teaching law, but unless the job is law professor, rarely are we called upon to teach anybody everything on any particular point. Hiring a lawyer is not attending law school secondhand in installments.

To summarize a summary is not just to compress an already compressed explanation, but also, often, to reword it. Choice of words can be important in what I do. Not inevitably in the cartoonish way those with little experience of the law tend to suppose, where failing to say exactly the right thing makes no magic. In a more serious way affecting how much advice my clients need, longer-term.

When a client uses a chatbot to effectively rewrite my guidance, I lose control of how worthwhile terms get introduced. I lose control of how they’re sprinkled through the text later, to develop fluency. Both content and presentation end up on invisible autopilot. There is no bright line between those in the law.

I need to keep pushing myself, and setting clients up to push me, toward plainer, shorter, better organized writing. We also need to stay on the level. If clients are in positions that drive them to interpose chatbots between us, whether out of verve for the tech or simply under time crunch, I should be making it clear that’s something they should unhesitatingly tell me. I should be prompting them to say so.