ChatGPT sounds clever – but is not a lawyer
Many people believe that if you formulate a legal question well, you will get a good answer.
But this is precisely where the problem lies.
Below we summarize why ChatGPT does not replace a lawyer.
Garbage In, Garbage Out – Why Input Quality Is Crucial
ChatGPT reproduces what it receives. Anyone who provides unclear, incomplete or one-sided information receives correspondingly incorrect output – regularly smooth in terms of language but unsuitable in terms of content.
When applying the law, it is not enough to simply ask a question. The decisive factors are:
Deadlines, file contents, responsibilities, context, burden of proof, strategy and much more.
A lawyer asks. ChatGPT does not.
ChatGPT simulates language—but not legal reasoning
What sounds like a neat argument is often just a good-sounding speech pattern. No subsumption, no weighting, no strategy.
ChatGPT combines texts from billions of sources – but it does not “understand” any legal norms or cantonal practice. The outputs are linguistically plausible – but lack legal depth.
Why Many People Overestimate ChatGPT
Because ChatGPT writes fluently, we humanize it. Psychologically, this is called anthropomorphism – we assume thinking where only statistics are running.
This creates a dangerous misconception: what sounds convincing is perceived as correct.
But ChatGPT bears no responsibility – and does not recognize when an answer is legally incorrect.
Common Mistakes When Working with AI—and How to Do It Better
Most people use ChatGPT passively: they ask a question and take the first answer as the truth.
Experienced users, on the other hand:
- give context
- test and compare variants
- check legal statements against primary sources
- think ahead strategically
Those who use AI like a tool – not like an oracle – achieve better results.
The biggest mistakes when using ChatGPT:
- provide too little context
- Accept answers without review
- No distinction between legal information and legal advice
- No follow-up examination by medical professionals
A lawyer takes responsibility—ChatGPT does not
A lawyer is obliged by law to act diligently and in the interests of his clients. He thinks beyond the next procedural step – with experience, a sense of duty and a strategic view.
ChatGPT, on the other hand, generates text. Without verification. Without assuming responsibility.
At best, this is just inefficient. At worst, it is irreversible.
AI is a tool—but it is no substitute for a lawyer
We also use AI in our day-to-day work – for research, rough drafts and pattern matching. But the responsibility always remains with us.
Only those who combine legal technology with legal thinking can use it sensibly.
Conclusion – Why ChatGPT does not replace a lawyer
ChatGPT reflects – but it doesn’t think.
It knows no mandates, no consequences and no responsibility.
That’s why every legal assessment needs something that no AI can provide:
Confidentiality, risk assessment, human thinking.
FF-Law Your contact for real advice with responsibility
Our attorneys in Winterthur provide comprehensive support and advice on matters related to criminal law, traffic law, social security law, contract law, dog and animal law, and immigration and migration law.
Matthias Fricker
Attorney at law and partner at Fricker and Füllemann Attorneys at Law
Studied at the University of St. Gallen, graduating with a Master in Law (M.A. HSG in Law) in 2012, registered in the Bar Register of the Canton of Zurich, member of the Zurich Bar Association.
Fabian Füllemann
Attorney at law and partner at Fricker and Füllemann Attorneys at Law
Studied at the Universities of St. Gallen and Zurich, graduating with a Master of Law UZH in 2013, registered with the Zurich Bar Registry, member of the Zurich Bar Association.
