OPINON: Europe’s legal work is awash with AI slop, but there is a way to fix it

Europe's legal sector is grappling with the issue of AI-generated content that is of poor quality. While startups have embraced generative and agentic AI for various applications, this innovation has led to an overwhelming amount of slop across different mediums, including legal work. Jamie Bartlett, a renowned author and BBC journalist, refers to this issue as the "burden of AI clog," as AI is now creating more work rather than saving time.

The slop extends to contract negotiations and other legal work, which now require a lengthy review process due to AI-generated drafts that are often riddled with errors. Even the bodies responsible for drafting laws are facing challenges, with the US Office of the Legislative Counsel reportedly overwhelmed by AI-generated error-filled drafts.

The problem lies not solely in AI but in the lack of proper policies and quality control measures for legal work. Many law firms still do not have a clear policy for employees to use AI tools, leading to the reliance on general language models, which can be detrimental during contract negotiations. AI editors often make unnecessary changes, such as striking out and replacing large portions of text, leading to excessive redlining that lacks insight and relevance.

This approach does not foster productive negotiations, as it alienates the other party and hampers the negotiation process.

However, Europe's startups have the potential to rectify this issue. By implementing a well-defined playbook for legal work, these tools can be used effectively without creating slop or excessive revisions. The playbook would set out the firm's position, policies, and approach, setting parameters for what is and isn't acceptable.

The AI tool can then scan for compliance issues, conflicts, and areas of disagreement, making suggested edits that align with the playbook's guidelines. This approach ensures minimal amendments, helping to bridge the gap between parties and reach a consensus more efficiently, without relying on human intervention.

When legal AI is used judiciously, it can be a blessing for companies, allowing more work to be done in-house before seeking outside counsel. These tools can act as mediation portals, highlighting differences of position and evaluating them before text is ruthlessly red-lined. The excessive redlining and the burden of AI clog need to stop, as users are tired of the added work and complaints about AI-generated slop.

The bar for AI-enabled legal work will soon rise, with users demanding tools that provide precise, relevant, and insightful edits.