One in six people are consulting AI chatbots for help with legal issues, according to new research from the law reform charity JUSTICE and the Administrative Fairness Lab.
The study, the first look at public use of AI in this setting, reviewed actual transcripts related to live legal disputes in the two years leading up to January 2026. It found people asking chatbots about their legal rights and options; using it to draft correspondence from complaints to formal warnings; clarifying and checking communications with lawyers; and seeking emotional reassurance.
One participant, contacted by a bailiff regarding council tax on an old property, asked AI for a script to use on the phone. Another laid out the details of a potential claim, writing ‘In my eyes it’s complete medical negligence, do you agree?’ Others asked ‘what happens when I go to court and how do I address the magistrate?’, ‘explain in simple terms how a deed of trust works’ and ‘Is it appropriate for a solicitor to request my mortgage funds without my consent?’
Ellen Lefley, Deputy Legal Director at JUSTICE, said: ‘The question is not whether AI becomes part of people’s legal journeys – it already is. This research provides a unique insight into who is using it and how. The challenge now is ensuring people receive reliable support, while addressing the unmet legal needs that drive some towards AI in the first place.’
A large number of the requests related to common problems that typically fall outside the scope of legal aid, such as housing, employment, debt, family law and consumer issues. Those who used chatbots tended to be younger, male and employed. Few (6%) relied solely on AI for advice, and those who used AI were less likely to have obtained help from a lawyer but more likely to have gone to Citizens Advice or a legal advice helpline.
AI offered participants help and support they evidently could not obtain elsewhere, even where they had other sources of assistance to hand. But there are concerns about the reliability of responses, particularly where practical queries are combined with reassurance-seeking. Research suggests that AI can reinforce false beliefs, with those who come across most vulnerable receiving less accurate replies. Reports have highlighted public services and law firms are struggling to process an increasing volume of complex and erroneous AI-generated documentation. Additionally, there are concerns that the potential benefits of these technologies are not evenly distributed, with women, older people and the unemployed put at a further disadvantage.
‘There is a risk that the digital gap reshapes and deepens the justice gap’, Lefley continued. ‘AI is clearly meeting some unmet legal need, but not helping the most excluded or marginalised. For them, AI is not the solution; but in fact could cause even more confusion and inequality.’
‘This poses a question: how do we leverage AI to meet the needs of some with reliable advice, whilst targeting in-person resources to those with the most need?’
