How to assess a legal assistant beyond the demonstration
The useful questions concern sources, errors and the ability to recognise missing information.
An impressive answer is only the beginning
When a legal assistant is demonstrated publicly, the speed of its response tends to attract attention. The important question for the user comes next: how far can this explanation be relied on?
A meaningful test starts with a question whose facts are known. Check whether the tool accounts for the country, date and information supplied. Then observe what happens when the question is incomplete.
Examine failures as well as successes
A system that asks for clarification may seem less impressive than one that answers immediately. Recognising missing information is often more useful than presenting an assumption as a fact.
Compare tools using the same small set of situations. Include straightforward and ambiguous questions. Record missing references, contradictions and unsupported additions. Keep the correct answers too, so that a single example does not determine the whole assessment.
Make checking possible
A citation should be accessible and support the statement it accompanies. A link to an institution's homepage may not allow a reader to verify a particular rule. The date and scope of the source matter as much as the institution's name.
Users also need to understand when a conversation should lead to more appropriate help. A court document, an approaching deadline or an existing dispute changes the nature of the need.
Turn debate into improvement
Criticism can help make limits more visible and explanations more precise. For AILawyer, the practical response is to improve what users can check: clear labels, identifiable sources and pathways that provide appropriate direction. Trust is built through these details.
General information. Application to a matter depends on its facts and the rules in force.
