Lawyer without time - ChatGPT shows more empathy

Lawyer without empathy: ChatGPT does it better

Today I am writing about an experience I recently had to make. For family reasons, we needed a lawyer, although we already had a planned appointment somewhere else, but since we were advised by an organization that helps people to look for a lawyer nearby, since all lawyers have passed their state exams, it wouldn't make any difference, would it?

We got a prompt appointment a few days later, with a lawyer nearby and canceled the appointment with the lawyer we had scheduled by e-mail, because by No one answered the phone.

The first impression

At the appointment with the lawyer, we arrived about 30 minutes early, the receptionist was very friendly and asked us to take a seat in the meeting room, everything seemed inviting and safe, an environment that gives you the feeling that you are in good hands. But when the lawyer entered the room and greeted us, the first question that should have set alarm bells ringing was: "Do you have the €120 with you?".

I didn't think anything of it at first, but in the course of the conversation, where we had also given consultation vouchers worth 190 € to the lawyer so that he would take care of our case, we thought that we would get 2 consultation hours, for 2 separate cases, civil law and family law.

The consultation hour

We wanted to tell him the story, what had happened, what evidence we had. But the lawyer showed no interest in that, neither did he look at it, nor did he even want to know what had happened. He didn't look at the evidence that had been collected and digitally printed out on paper, he didn't look at the documents. What's more, he kept interrupting us because the whole thing was supposedly going too fast for him, he showed no interest in the subject and wanted to finish quickly.

He only wrote down the most important personnel information. And we paid €120 for this and handed over a €190 consultancy voucher?

When asked if we had any chance at all, he said that he wouldn't do it if there was no chance. But what does that mean? He has his money, he gets it even if he doesn't win, he has nothing to lose, the chance can also be 1%, of course it's a chance, a chance for him to earn his money.

After about 1 hour, I don't know exactly, because for some reason no clock had been hung up in a meeting room (maybe on purpose?), we left the lawyer's office, we discussed the lawyer's behavior, who asked us without first asking us to fill out a power of attorney so that he could take care of it.

We talked about the fact that he didn't actually advise us at all, we could have written down the information ourselves by email. No paragraphs were mentioned, nothing that would help us to invoke German law, he gave us no recommendations for action.

Is that normal for a lawyer? We had a bad feeling and decided to see the €120 as a loss and get the voucher back, as no work had been done. But more on that later.

The lack of empathy

And now we come to the real point, why do you ask a lawyer if they don't even help you with their knowledge or show empathy and interest in the case? Instead, it was a cold conversation, without empathy and understanding of our situation.

Since I work with AI myself and work in prompt engineering, I didn't want to settle for that and asked with the matching prompt ChatGPT 4o to get some really useful help. And in one fell swoop, I got exactly what I needed, and I asked myself the question: how can AI be better here if it only offers "technical empathy"?

Technical empathy

I use this term in my own context, you can also call it programmed empathy, because ChatGPT doesn't know me, it can't feel, it's an LLM (Large Language Model), it emulates empathy by asking questions and trying to emit human answers and reactions.

And yet, the answers from ChatGPT 4o and their technical empathy were ultimately more valuable than a lawyer's €120.

ChatGPT 4o as an alternative to a lawyer?

The fact is, ChatGPT is not perfect, it can cause errors and is not error-free, everyone should check for themselves what the AI suggests and which paragraphs it includes.

The big advantage of 4o is that you also receive the sources for the paragraphs and can therefore check for yourself whether this law/statute can be applied to you. Another advantage of ChatGPT is that it makes the legal language understandable and comprehensible for ordinary mortals without the need for complicated explanations.

And that's exactly what we didn't get, neither did the lawyer give us the paragraphs we can legally refer to, nor did he explain the actions and next steps we should/will take next.

First experiences with AI

So if the AI gives me better results, gives me better advice, gives me information and paragraphs to which I can legally refer, and then at least pretends to empathize with me instead of just demanding money and is available to me 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for later questions or queries, compared to a lawyer, who wants €120 per hour or part thereof, shows me no empathy and apparently only wants the money, so you don't need to think long about the fact that you might be better off with an AI for legal advice, if you check the whole thing yourself of course and deal with the paragraphs?

We gave ChatGPT 4o the necessary information, evidence/screenshots of digital communication, statements from witnesses, etc., and we received information back about which legal steps are possible, which are not, where we have restrictions under German law and how to proceed. In the end, of course, we were always advised to contact a specialist lawyer, but that didn't really achieve what we had hoped for.

The AI listens

Another advantage is that the AI listens, it is not overwhelmed by the mass of information you give it, whereas the human lawyer would say stop after less than 2 minutes because he wouldn't understand anything. The AI in the form of ChatGPT 4o came back with the answers in a friendly but professional tone. If I had any questions about their answers, I could ask them in writing and read through them again at any time later and search through the content. With a lawyer, you have to write down what you need yourself, which takes time and is also expensive at €120 per hour.

The advantage of being able to ask questions, whether early in the morning or late at night, because you had a burning question in your head for which you were looking for an answer, AI is a gift from the future in which we live. Just a few years ago, this would have been unthinkable and you would have to make another appointment, pay €120 again and ask the lawyer if you only had one question and the answer was worth €120. It therefore always makes sense to write down so many questions and record the answers on paper that a question/answer is worth around €10, so that you get the maximum out of your money in an hour (my personal opinion).

Comparison: human lawyer vs. AI

Here is a summary of the comparison in 3 points

  1. Costs and performance
    • 120 € for a disappointing hour vs. 20 € per month for continuous advice.
    • The AI delivered more in minutes than the lawyer did in an hour.
  2. Availability and empathy
    • Lawyer: Only by appointment, impatient, disinterested.
    • AI: Available around the clock, no devaluation or impatience with queries.
  3. Practical results
    • Human lawyer: No clear recommendations for action.
    • AI: Concrete solutions and legal foundations.

So can AI replace a lawyer?

However much I would like to answer this question in the affirmative, unfortunately I have to say no. AI is a tool, a compendium of knowledge, trained with data, and these are not error-free, because we humans cannot be error-free either, so AI is not error-free.

BUTIf you are prepared to deal with the legal texts yourself and can invest time and do not have enough money to pay so much money for an hour, you can save money in legal disputes if the AI can advise you in advance and tell you which legal options you can rely on. The AI can do the preliminary legal work here.

The future of the lawyer?

My personal opinion, and I told the office employee this the next day when we got the advice voucher back from the aid organization and wanted to revoke the power of attorney, is that if an AI can give me better advice in less than an hour than a state-exam qualified lawyer who is disinterested and lacks empathy and just wants the money, His look was stunned, as if he hadn't thought that AI could replace a lawyer, then it's not because the AI has more knowledge or is cheaper, but because the future of a lawyer will no longer depend solely on his knowledge, but on the way he treats his clients and the emotional intelligence he displays.

In the future, lawyers will probably only appear in court to fulfill the legal requirements of legal representation in court, because ChatGPT is unfortunately not able to do this as a virtual entity. The lawyer will go from being a legal expert who pores over legal texts to an executive who receives the tasks from an AI. Everyone can decide for themselves whether €120 per hour is still a reasonable wage.

The legal profession will remain indispensable, but AI will also change a lot in this area, and lawyers who lack empathy will sooner or later run into problems.

If you already use ChatGPT, you should try it yourself. I will not provide a specific prompt at this point, it always depends on the individual case.

You like this article? Share it!

Posted by Petr Kirpeit

All articles are my personal opinion and are written in German. In order to offer English-speaking readers access to the article, they are automatically translated via DeepL. Facts and sources will be added where possible. Unless there is clear evidence, the respective article is considered to be my personal opinion at the time of publication. This opinion may change over time. Friends, partners, companies and others do not have to share this position.

Leave a Reply