Two in Five UK Adults Would Consider Using AI Instead of a Solicitor for Legal Questions, Despite High Rate of AI Advice Errors
A survey of 2,000 people published on 20 October 2026 by comparison website Uswitch found that 39% of UK adults would consider turning to AI instead of a solicitor for a legal question. The finding sits alongside a striking caveat: nearly a quarter of people who have already turned to AI for advice more broadly received guidance that turned out to be wrong and caused a real problem, including financial losses, health scares, damaged relationships and embarrassment. Respondents gave three main reasons for preferring AI to a professional: speed (43%), 24-hour availability (42%), and cost, with AI being free or cheaper than paying a professional (41%). Other factors included the perceived ease of verifying AI advice (29%), reluctance to feel embarrassed asking a professional (21%), and distrust of professionals to act in their best interests (18%). The survey also found that 18% of people have made a personal decision based solely on a chatbot's advice without seeking a second opinion, rising to 40% among Gen Z respondents. Almost half of those who used AI for personal advice trusted it as much as, or more than, a friend or family member. Uswitch's Max Beckett acknowledged that AI can be a useful starting point for understanding an unfamiliar legal issue, but drew a clear distinction between finding information and receiving legal advice tailored to individual circumstances. He highlighted that chatbots can present answers with a reassuring sense of certainty even when the underlying information is inaccurate or lacks important context, and that human judgement remains particularly important given the non-linear complexity of most legal questions.
Why this matters
The 39% willingness figure, set against a near-25% rate of harmful AI advice errors, crystallises the access-to-justice tension at the heart of AI's role in legal services: the populations most likely to substitute AI for a solicitor are often those who cannot afford professional advice and are therefore most exposed to the consequences of AI error. For the legal profession, this data point reinforces the regulatory and reputational case for clear guidance on the limits of AI-generated legal information, and it raises questions about whether the current regulatory framework adequately addresses AI as a de facto legal advice channel. The generational skew, with 40% of Gen Z making personal decisions solely on chatbot advice, signals that the substitution effect will intensify as younger consumers enter the legal market as both clients and counterparties.
On the Ground
This story has direct implications for law firm client development and access-to-justice policy, and it sits squarely in the regulatory space around unauthorised legal advice and professional liability. Solicitors' firms offering consumer-facing legal services must consider how to position AI tools as supplements to, rather than substitutes for, professional advice, both for risk management and regulatory compliance purposes. Firms with legal technology practices and those advising legal tech companies on regulatory boundaries (including whether AI tools constitute unauthorised legal practice) will see increasing client demand from this trend. A trainee working on AI governance matters would be drafting AI governance policy documents, reviewing technology licence agreements for AI tools, preparing regulatory impact assessment memos on the boundary between legal information and legal advice, and assisting with vendor due diligence questionnaires.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“What are the professional liability and regulatory implications for law firms that deploy AI tools that clients might treat as a substitute for legal advice?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved