Can an AI chatbot give legal advice?

Where is the line between information and advice?

Generality. “Florida’s personal injury statute of limitations is generally two years” is information. “You still have time to sue for your accident” is advice: it applies law to the visitor’s facts. Intake bots must live entirely on the information side and be tested against attempts to drag them across.

How is a bot fenced against giving advice?

Defense in depth: a system prompt that defines refusal behaviors, response templates that redirect facts-specific questions to consultation booking, adversarial pre-launch testing (“just tell me if I have a case”), and conversation-log review. FirmCited ships intake bots with these fences as the default, not an option.

What happens when a visitor pushes for advice?

The bot acknowledges the question matters, states plainly that it cannot advise because it is not a lawyer, and converts the moment: “That is exactly what a consultation answers, I can get your details to the team now, and you will hear back in under a minute.” The refusal becomes the conversion.

Related next steps

• AI Policy Generator

  Draft a written AI use policy for your firm covering acceptable use, client data, disclosure and human review, then adapt it with your own counsel before you adopt it.

• Intake Pilot

  For US personal-injury firms: every inquiry gets your booking link inside a minute, three follow-ups over seven days, and a weekly report of captured, qualified and booked consultations.