When Clients Meet AI
When Clients Meet AI
Anyone who advises clients on HMRC disputes has seen this before. A client arrives convinced they have found the point that will defeat HMRC, overturn a decision or change the course of an appeal.
Ten years ago, it was something they found on Google, but today it is often something generated by AI. The technology has changed; human nature has not.
In fact, the modern version often arrives with an AI-generated report and a client hoping it will result in a reduction in fees because most of the research has already been done.
What the AI Itself Says
For the purpose of this article, I asked Claude whether it or ChatGPT could accurately research legal authorities.
The response was refreshingly candid:
“The reality is that neither I nor ChatGPT should be your primary tool for researching authorities.”
Claude went on to explain that AI can hallucinate citations, invent plausible-sounding case names and references that do not exist, that it lacks comprehensive access to Tribunal decisions, and that it cannot reliably conduct the sort of legal research required in litigation.
Where Research Ends and Judgment Begins
A taxpayer may find a case that appears to support their position, but before relying on it, someone still needs to establish whether the case is still good law, whether the point was actually decided by the court, whether the passage relied upon was essential to the decision or merely an observation, whether the case was distinguished later, whether it is binding authority or merely persuasive, whether it concerns the same statutory wording, and whether the facts genuinely support the proposition being advanced. That is where research ends and judgment begins.
Clients do not really pay advisers to find information. Information has never been more accessible. They pay advisers to identify the arguments that are worth pursuing, the arguments that will fail, and the arguments a Tribunal is likely to find persuasive.
The Difference Between Finding and Understanding
AI is undoubtedly impressive. It can summarise documents in seconds, identify issues, challenge assumptions and help test arguments, but there remains a significant difference between finding information and understanding its significance.
AI can often identify legal authorities more quickly than a lawyer. That does not mean it can yet run a tax tribunal appeal, conduct a complex HMRC investigation, or decide which arguments are worth advancing before a Tribunal.
The future will almost certainly involve advisers using AI, but it will not remove the need for experience, judgment and expertise. Not yet, at least!
