The Oracle of Google
Once upon a time, there was a “Google University,” which qualified people as experts on every conceivable topic. The intrepid Google student would set upon a journey of higher learning by typing in various searches and following links to some of the top results, visiting web pages and reading articles or watching videos.
The moment he decided he knew enough, especially after viewing something he agreed with or already believed, his learning was complete and unquestionable for all time.
This foolproof learning method qualified the graduate as an expert on any topic Googled in the manner the graduate preferred. No one could dissuade the expert from his conclusions, particularly those least deserving of respect — those fools who got degrees from wasting years at universities completing a formal curriculum covering a concentrated field of study, taught by professors who spent the entirety of their adult lives learning that very topic.
His degree wisely wasted no time on frivolous activities like reading entire books, learning from masters in a single field of study, and being tested to demonstrate proficient knowledge of that subject. All that was inferior to being exposed to the Oracle of Google.
Excalibur AI
While the Oracle of Google provided expert-level knowledge after visiting the top search results, AI instantly endowed the asker of the question with the distilled wisdom of the ages. Like Arthur pulling Excalibur from the stone to become the worthy King of England by Divine Right, entering a query into AI earned the coveted AI University PhD and Divine Infallibility.
Seriously, Though
Of course, that's all tongue in cheek. Google and AI are all-time great technological tools. As with all powerful tools, benefits and downsides go hand in hand. This page highlights how those technologies can drive a wedge between lawyers and clients.
Google University
Since the ascension of Google as the most prominent search engine on the planet, lawyers have privately joked about clients and non-clients alike as having degrees in law from “Google University.” Lawyers field questions and concerns based on what may seem to them to be nonsensical and silly.
The source of humor is that the client is absolutely certain about something they got totally wrong, and nothing seems to dissuade the client from the error. While there is an element of humor from one perspective, it's no laughing matter, because it undermines the attorney-client relationship in significant ways.
It Causes a No-Win Situation
Usually, it begins with a tension between a client and the lawyer based on information acquired by the client from Google searches. The client develops a concern that the lawyer has fallen below a minimum standard because of something found on Google. Even if the client got correct, reliable information, the next step of understanding that information in its proper context is far from guaranteed. What may seem to be an obviously correct conclusion to the client may be readily identified by the lawyer as plainly incorrect.
When lawyers hear about such concerns, the situation can be a frustrating quandary. Ignoring a client concern, even if that concern is totally unfounded, is a poor option. The alternatives are not especially appealing, either.
Educating someone about law can be an extremely time-consuming challenge. Even if the client isn't trying to be critical, educating the client will take time the attorney probably can't spare and will almost certainly earn no additional fee. Time and energy wind up wasted without advancing the client's matter at all.
Worse, the client may have developed an impression that the lawyer is incompetent, lazy, or simply doesn't care about the client at all. Recovering the relationship between client and attorney after a loss of trust or respect can be difficult or impossible.
AI May Convince You Your Lawyer Is Awful, But…
Surely, the legal profession has some underperforming, irresponsible lawyers, and you may have drawn the short straw. However, the vast majority of lawyers are conscientious, ethical, and know far better than Google and AI what to do with their clients' cases.
Lawyers typically started as highly motivated, excellent students. Prior to law school, they must have earned at least one university four-year degree, and their grades were typically at or near the top of their class. As a rule, they took the Law School Admission Test (LSAT) and scored highly. They applied through one or more highly competitive admissions processes, which, at many schools, means 90% or more of applicants are rejected. They were screened for good character and “fitness” for practicing law by the Texas Board of Law Examiners. After graduating law school, they also passed the days-long bar exam. Each year thereafter, they have engaged in at least 15 hours of CLE — Continuing Legal Education.
Using AI Doesn't Mean You're Making a Mistake
Most “AI PhDs” are well-meaning people who simply want to understand their extremely stressful situation better. They typically are dealing with a once-in-a-lifetime trauma, have no idea what to do, don't know where to start, and have come to rely upon Google and AI as trusted resources.
They don't know how to choose an attorney, so they seek guidance on what questions to ask and what information to gather. Existing clients may be uneasy and want to feel like their lawyer is doing right by them, so they seek answers and wind up with more questions.
Other people, though, confront and antagonize their lawyers because they don't think their lawyer has lived up to whatever standards Google and AI told them were minimal. Those people often credit themselves as having cleverly outsmarted the attorney they consider deficient.
Unfortunately, the reality is frequently far from their perception. It's not all their fault. AI responses are intended to sound authoritative, rather than acknowledging their own limitations. People use AI to get definitive answers, not typical lawyer answers like “it depends” on X, Y, and Z. If your attorney's behavior doesn't match or improve on whatever AI said, you can easily become certain your lawyer is failing you in one or more ways.
Regardless of the reason for contentious interactions, lawyers generally don't like dealing with them. It takes time to deal with those situations, and time is limited.
More to the point, fielding claims and concerns from clients based on faulty and incomplete information from AI can be a never-ending, fruitless process.
My Small Experiment With AI Legal Advice in 2026
I've dived into AI platforms myself to see what they would do with legal questions. The results were mixed, and I was left somewhat distressed about people using AI for legal advice on most issues I questioned.
The answers were sometimes fairly thorough and impressive. Other answers were incomplete and sometimes dead wrong. Every single AI response sounded definitive and certain, whether 100% right or 100% wrong.
When I encountered the totally wrong answers, I didn't leave it alone. Instead, I tried to help improve the platforms' answers by providing correct answers with readily available online resources to verify the answers I provided. Within moments, each platform checked its answer against the sources, accepted the correction, and told me I was right.
However, when I returned to the platforms to ask the same questions while using a different account, I got one of two answers: 1) the same wrong answer; or 2) a different wrong answer.
My informal conclusion was that AI platforms have more to “learn” about the cases we handle, as well as how to learn. For all the things AI can do spectacularly well, it has limitations.
Trusting a Lawyer With Your Case May Be Hard, but Trusting AI Is Inadvisable
Condensing what lawyers have learned through years of study and practice into a few paragraphs and generalities is almost never sufficient to help a client.
AI's one-size-fits-all answers may be able to provide a good answer to a single, one-dimensional question. Nuances of a client's personal circumstances, consideration of the client's specific factual situation, and local application of every aspect of a client's legal matter in the court where it is pending are unlikely to be addressed by AI in the near future.
Choose your lawyer wisely.
