In the M&A-Law world, I am facing a major challenge:
Clients, buyers, sellers, and even opposing counsel are taking advice from AI Systems.
Last week, a client sent an LOI that was exceedingly standard and a very favorable offer for the seller. The seller ran it through ChatGPT, and it told the seller that it was a bad deal, including that the seller should not agree to a non-compete (very standard).
The seller sent an email with all of the ChatGPT-flagged issues list and terminated discussions.
It is not just sellers, but my clients are sending me AI-generated lists, and I have to try to convince them that AI is off-base (or lacking nuance) and that my opinion is right. I find myself defending myself from their AI tools.
AI (in its current form) is like a person you meet at a dinner party who talks loudly and confidently, but upon scrutiny lacks nuance or strategic understanding.
This results in bad outcomes for many people, including the seller who rejected a great LOI offer.
AI can be a great tool for people who already know a lot about a topic, but very damaging to people who use it for something they do not know about.
It is also eating up a lot of legal time to run through issues lists, which are quickly written by low-cost AI.