More than a third of UK adults would consider turning to an AI chatbot instead of a solicitor for a legal question, according to a survey published by the price comparison service Uswitch.
The research found that 39 per cent of respondents would consider using AI rather than a solicitor. The survey of 2,000 UK adults was carried out online by Opinium between 17 and 21 July 2026 and weighted to be nationally representative, according to Uswitch.
The findings also suggest that many people are acting on chatbot answers without checking them. Nearly one in five (18 per cent) said they had made a personal decision based solely on a chatbot’s advice, without seeking a second opinion, rising to two in five (40 per cent) among Gen Z. Almost half (48 per cent) of those who use AI for personal advice said they trust it as much as, or more than, a friend or family member.
Information versus advice
Max Beckett, a broadband expert at Uswitch, said the technology had made legal information easier to reach but warned against treating it as a substitute for a lawyer.
“AI has made legal information much more accessible, particularly when it comes to explaining complicated terminology or giving people a quick overview of an issue. In fact, 39% would try using AI instead of a solicitor for their legal questions. But there’s an important difference between finding information and getting legal advice that is tailored to your circumstances,” he said.
“A chatbot can only respond to the information it has been given, whereas a solicitor is trained to ask the right questions, identify the details that could change the position, and apply their legal knowledge to the specific situation.
“AI chatbots can also present answers with a reassuring sense of certainty, even when the information they’re based on is inaccurate or lacking important context. Human judgement is therefore particularly important, especially as the answer to a legal question isn’t always as straightforward as it might appear from the information available online.”
He added: “AI can be a useful starting point for helping people understand an unfamiliar legal issue, but it shouldn’t replace professional advice. Whether you’re signing a contract or considering legal action, a solicitor can assess the situation as a whole and explain the options available to you.”
What the research on legal help shows
The survey adds to a growing body of evidence that the public is already using generative AI for legal problems. A study published in August by the law reform charity JUSTICE and the Administrative Fairness Lab found that about one in six participants with a recent legal problem had used a generative AI chatbot for some form of help. Use was highest among younger people: 26 per cent of 18 to 24 year olds with a legal dispute had used a chatbot, compared with 10 per cent of those aged 55 to 64.
The JUSTICE research, based on a survey of 3,287 people carried out between December 2025 and January 2026, found that only 6 per cent of chatbot users relied on AI alone, and that they drew on 3.7 sources of help on average. However, 33.9 per cent of chatbot users had sought advice from a solicitor, compared with 44.6 per cent of those who did not use a chatbot, according to the report.
Regulators flag protection gaps
The Legal Services Board, which oversees the legal regulators in England and Wales, published research in June examining how well consumers are protected when they use AI-powered legal tools. According to the Legal Services Board, 70 per cent of consumers surveyed expected AI to make legal services easier to use and 64 per cent expected greater affordability, while around 32 per cent of adults in England and Wales who experience a legal problem receive no professional support.
The same work found that standards designed specifically for consumer-facing AI legal tools are almost entirely absent, and that 58 per cent of the standards that do exist are non-binding guidance with no enforcement mechanism, the board said. It said protection was weakest in identifying vulnerable users, directing people to regulated support and providing routes to complain. Consumers set out five safeguards they regarded as essential: a minimum guarantee of accuracy, no consequential action without informed consent, human oversight, access to redress and protection of personal data. Some 57 per cent favoured mandatory regulation over voluntary standards alone.
Richard Orpin, chief executive of the Legal Services Board, said at the time: “More and more people are turning to AI for help with legal problems, whether that’s a housing dispute, a problem at work, or a debt they cannot manage.” The board said it would develop its AI priorities for the next three years and work with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Council for Licensed Conveyancers and the Information Commissioner’s Office.
Professional standards still apply
The risks Beckett describes are not confined to members of the public. The Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a warning notice on the misuse of AI on 17 August 2026 after receiving 42 reports of potential misuse between July 2025 and July 2026, Legal IT Insider reported. The regulator’s concerns centred on inaccurate or fabricated material, including so-called hallucinations, in submissions to the court, and on confidential client information being entered into AI tools without adequate safeguards.
Aileen Armstrong, the regulator’s executive director for strategy and policy, said that “the use of AI does not change the professional standards expected of solicitors and law firms”, according to the same report.
That distinction underpins the survey’s central point. A solicitor who uses AI remains regulated and accountable for the advice given, whereas a member of the public who relies on a general-purpose chatbot may, on the Legal Services Board’s findings, have no clear route to complain if the answer turns out to be wrong.
