Lindsey Busfield was recently interviewed by Forbes Magazine about the “Accountability Gap” – the rift that happens when law firms integrate AI into their marketing and operations without oversight and disclosure.
In this article we are taking a deeper look into the accountability gap: AI intake.
AI agents built to trick callers into thinking they are speaking with a human goes beyond creepy. It is deceptive and unethical, especially when implemented by personal injury lawyers.
I might rock the boat a bit with this one, but it is a boat that needs to be rocked.
Summary:
- Undisclosed AI intake that is designed to be deceptive is unethical and might violate ABA Models Rules of Professional Conduct.
- AI intake interactions should be disclosed so that prospective clients can make an informed decision.
- Personal injury firms likely will have a higher conversion rate if they provide prospective clients with a choice of interacting with an AI agent or a human.
Deceptive AI Intake
When it comes to AI, the technology is rapidly outpacing the ethical limitations. That isn’t a wild notion. But it does seem to be overlooked when it comes to AI intake for law firms.
I’ve interviewed many of the big AI intake players on the Personal Injury Marketing Minute podcast. They dive into how the technology is rapidly improving response time, reducing the number of missed leads, and – most importantly – getting to a point where prospective clients can’t distinguish between an AI agent and a real human.
That isn’t a good thing.
AI Intake Widens the Trust Gap for Personal Injury Lawyers
Yes, it is critical that a personal injury firm’s phone gets answered and prospective clients get engaged as quickly as possible. Yes, it is wonderful for a law firm’s bottom line to automate rather than pay real humans. However, while AI closes the speed gap between competitors, it only widens the trust gap.
When a prospective client reaches out to a law firm for the first time, they are doing so based on blind trust. When they are met by technology that is designed to deceive callers into thinking they are talking to a human, that trust is immediately violated.
Law firms know that clients don’t want to use AI for intake. Otherwise, they wouldn’t care if the AI agent sounded like a passable human rather than an automation.
And let’s be honest, AI intake conversations are rarely effective in deceiving callers at this point. Many AI agents get caught in loops, find themselves unable to answer complex questions, and just don’t sound human. Once a prospective client realizes that they are speaking with an AI agent rather than a human, they are very likely to hang up and call another firm.
However, there are a few out there that are eerily on point with their voices and can trick someone into thinking they are legitimately talking with a human.
The bigger point is that the AI intake companies function with deception as a goal.
And this trust breach matters even if the caller never discovers it. They may disclose medical details, family circumstances, employment concerns, and other sensitive information within minutes. In that setting, the first interaction is not a routine customer-service exchange; it is the beginning of a relationship that depends on candor. If the firm presents a machine as a person, it asks the caller to be fully honest while withholding a basic fact about who – or what – they are talking to.
Undisclosed AI Intake as a Violation of ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
One could argue that undisclosed AI intake is a form of deceptive marketing practice, seeing as intake is widely considered an extension of the law firm’s marketing department. According to ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation is considered professional misconduct and does not maintain the integrity of the profession.
If a firm intentionally implements an intake agent that sounds human, gives it a human name, and permits it to answer direct questions in a way that reinforces that impression, the firm has deliberately created a misrepresentation of the interaction.
Therefore, failing to disclose that the prospective client is communicating with an AI agent rather than a human reasonably could be considered a violation of this rule.
ABA Model Rule 7.1 should also be considered when assessing AI Intake’s role within legal marketing. This rule prohibits false or misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer’s services, including factual omissions that keep communications from being misleading. Seeing that intake is part of how a firm presents and delivers its services, the fact that a caller is tricked into thinking they are speaking with a lawyer, paralegal or trained staff member (because the system is built to give them this impression), this omission could be as consequential as giving a false statement.
Of course, the ABA Model Rules are models, not binding law by themselves, and states may adopt or interpret them differently. However, states should be considering how AI intake and other AI technologies work within the professional code of conduct framework.
The Solution: Disclosure and Choice
First, we need to identify the real problems. The major problem isn’t with the concept of AI automation. There are still some major limitations with AI technology. Because of those issues, many prospective clients will simply hang up when they realize they are dealing with AI agents. However, that is a problem for the AI industry to solve.
We’re in marketing, so our solvable challenges include converting leads in an ethical way.
The problem is not automation itself. The problem is concealment. A simple disclosure like, “I’m the firm’s virtual intake assistant, and I can collect some preliminary information or connect you with a team member” preserves the caller’s ability to make an informed choice.
And the concept of choice is powerful and often overlooked.
As a mom, when I want my children to get dressed in the morning, I give them a choice of what to wear. They feel like they have control over the situation because they are given options, and there is less friction getting them out the door.
The same holds true for converting new leads through automated intake. If a prospective client calls your firm and you give them the option of working with an AI agent or speaking with a human, they feel like they are in control of the conversation. As such, they will be much more likely to convert because you are engaging with them on their terms.
