Interest in artificial intelligence for legal purposes has grown substantially over the last twelve months, with related searches climbing by more than three hundred percent. Queries specifically about the Harvey AI legal platform have increased by over two hundred percent during the same timeframe, including a fourteen percent jump in just the most recent three months. Yet concerns remain about what occurs when such technology produces errors.
Research undertaken for the Association of Lifetime Lawyers revealed that almost three-quarters of British adults between thirty and thirty-four would be open to employing artificial intelligence to compose or amend their wills. The same study indicated that only just over half of wills are presently prepared by qualified solicitors. How this discrepancy might be addressed has become increasingly significant.
Legal professionals at SE-Solicitors decided to evaluate artificial intelligence directly. They input a standard prompt, constructed around typical demographics and circumstances for first-time will makers, into a popular AI chatbot. The scenario described someone named Daniel, aged forty-two, with two children aged twenty-two and twenty-one, a property valued at four hundred and forty thousand pounds, savings of ten thousand pounds, no spouse, a pet dog and a car. They requested the document be drafted in straightforward British English.
Tom McInerney, a wills and probate specialist at SE-Solicitors, subsequently scrutinised the result and uncovered six significant problems. He is cautioning the public that relying on artificial intelligence to save time or money could leave families severely out of pocket:
A will constitutes a legally enforceable document, not merely correspondence or a brief note, and it must withstand scrutiny in court proceedings.
First, the artificial intelligence overlooked inheritance tax considerations entirely. It failed to pose relevant questions about substantial gifts made during the person’s lifetime, neglected to flag potential changes to the inheritance tax system, and made no mention of new rules coming into effect from April two thousand and twenty-seven that could bring unused pension funds within the scope of inheritance tax, potentially pushing numerous estates over the tax threshold very quickly indeed.
Mr McInerney observed that a solicitor examines not only the present situation but also anticipates where an estate may be headed.
Second, artificial intelligence possesses no knowledge of the individual, whereas a will ought to reflect their complete circumstances. The AI-produced document appeared orderly on the surface, dividing assets equally between the two adult children and specifying arrangements should one predecease the other. However, it ventured no further than the basic information provided. It raised no queries about pension arrangements, life cover, online accounts, close companions, siblings or charitable intentions. It failed to consider how the broader financial position interrelates.
The specialist noted that such technology can only ever generate a will matching the input, never one tailored to the individual.
Third, the potential debts, relationship breakdowns or personal vulnerabilities of beneficiaries were disregarded. Bequeathing everything outright to adult children seems uncomplicated until practical realities intrude. One offspring might carry substantial debt, be navigating divorce proceedings, dealing with addiction issues or facing potential insolvency. Monies paid directly to them could become immediately vulnerable the moment received.
He explained that the very instrument intended to safeguard a child could instead expose them to inheriting considerable wealth before they possess the capability to manage it responsibly.
Fourth, a gap in the document left the pet unprotected and funds unaccounted for. When requested to address the dog’s care, the AI included a bequest to a named individual but specified no particular sum. The completed document contained an explicit placeholder, stating it would give a sum free of tax to that person for looking after and caring for the dog. The provision was also unconditional, meaning the designated carer could take the money and decline to accept the animal, with nothing within the document to prevent such an outcome.
Mr McInerney identified this as precisely the type of oversight that occurs when no qualified professional is present to pose appropriate questions.
Fifth, relatives could find themselves completely unable to deal with the estate. The execution section appeared adequate, providing spaces for Daniel and two witnesses to sign. However, it omitted clear confirmation that all parties signed in one another’s presence and in the proper sequence. When the Probate Registry reviews the will years subsequently, such details prove crucial.
He warned that bereaved families can find themselves trapped, unable to finalise the estate without pursuing a costly court application. This situation arises fairly frequently with documents created independently.
Disputes over probate in England and Wales increased by thirteen percent during two thousand and twenty-five, with the final three months of that year seeing the highest number of such cases recorded in ten years.
Sixth, users cannot ascertain where their most private information has been transmitted. To produce this will, an individual must share their name, age, details of assets, information about their children and specification of intended bequests. Once entered into a chatbot, most users have virtually no visibility regarding subsequent handling of that data.
Mr McInerney cautioned that personal information may be retained, examined or even employed to develop future systems. It remains frequently unclear whether it remains within UK or EU jurisdictions or is held elsewhere with potentially weaker data protection standards, such as America.
He further emphasised that if such a service experiences a security incident, it could expose a comprehensive overview of someone’s wealth, intended beneficiaries and locations of significant assets. For a document as sensitive as a will, which essentially maps out both financial circumstances and family relationships, many individuals would reconsider their choice if they understood how little control they might exercise over the ultimate destination of such information.