How to use ChatGPT in a law firm, and when not to

When someone asks how to use ChatGPT in a law firm, and especially whether it is worth using to review or extract data from legal documents, the answer deserves more nuance than a yes or no. Here are my two cents after studying the question seriously.

1. ChatGPT is, first and foremost, an entertainment tool

Let us not forget: ChatGPT is, first and foremost, an entertainment tool, with some uses that can serve professional purposes, but which remain limited. That may sound provocative in 2024, but it is the most honest framing. ChatGPT is a connectionist and probabilistic tool, which allows it to surprise users, whereas the legal profession is built on reasoning, that is, on symbolic and often deterministic knowledge. We should therefore know when to use it and when it is inappropriate, or even dangerous. This first distinction is critical: treating it by default as a legal tool is already a mistake at the starting line.

2. Extracting critical data with ChatGPT is premature or reckless

Using ChatGPT to extract critical data from legal documents is either premature, reckless, or both. OpenAI’s chatbot technology, which includes neither advanced tools like Langchain nor more robust entity-extraction techniques, is not reliable enough to interpret the complexity of legal documents. These tasks require contextual understanding and precision that go well beyond text generation or pattern recognition. Which brings me to my next point.

3. Professional verification empties the promise of efficiency

Ultimately, the legal professional always has to verify, which significantly undermines the tool’s appeal, assuming the problem it was brought in to solve was actually a problem in the first place. The work still has to be put through the legal filter.

And if that were not the case, what is the real problem we are trying to solve? Freeing lawyers from these tasks? Because I can tell you that when a legal practitioner extracts information from a public document, that is not all they are doing. They are doing something fundamental: they are READING. And while reading, even quickly, they are simultaneously performing other tasks, sometimes entirely unconsciously, and can catch problems they were not looking for. If they are juniors, they are also being trained. I am therefore not convinced the problem is well-framed, nor that this is a clearly beneficial and risk-free use of AI.

4. Questioning companies that are not legal technology providers

It is essential to question whether companies that are NOT legal technology providers have the capacity to carry out this task reliably. And to measure the implications of trusting a tool that can neither guarantee accuracy nor explain its errors.

5. The right question before the tool

The digital transformation of a law firm does not begin by choosing the latest model, but by diagnosing which problem is genuinely worth automating, and under what conditions. The real competitive differentiator will not be whoever adopts ChatGPT, but whoever knows how to distinguish when it is the right tool and when it is not.

Frequently asked questions

How can ChatGPT be used in a law firm?

As an assistant for low-risk, high-verification tasks: first drafts of internal communications, stylistic rephrasing, preliminary summaries of long texts to orient reading, generation of hypothesis lists or initial outlines. Without an additional technical layer and systematic professional supervision, it is not appropriate for extracting critical data, drafting firm legal conclusions, or automating tasks that engage the lawyer's responsibility.

Is it safe to use AI with confidential client information?

Not by default. Public and free chatbot versions may retain or reuse submitted text for training, which is incompatible with attorney-client confidentiality. Sensitive data requires contractually secure environments (enterprise plans with no-training clauses, private deployments, or dedicated instances), clear internal policies, and, when appropriate, prior anonymization.

How much time does AI save in document review?

Vendor-reported savings rarely hold up once you account for the time spent on professional verification. In legal document review, AI accelerates the first reading, but the lawyer must come back to validate; the real gain depends far more on redesigning the workflow than on the tool itself.

What do the BMA Guidelines say about using ChatGPT with client information?

The Guidelines for the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Professional Practice of Law, published by the Barra Mexicana, Colegio de Abogados (BMA) in October 2025, prohibit feeding confidential or personal client information into third-party AI systems that do not guarantee privacy, security, and non-use of data for training, unless the client has given informed and explicit consent. They further require technical and organizational safeguards (encryption, anonymization), periodic review of terms of use, and rigorous human verification of anything ChatGPT produces before it is incorporated into a filing.