Credible, Not Always Correct: How Reddit Users Verify AI-Generated Legal Advice
TL;DR
Findings show that AI-assisted legal self-help operates within an emerging informal infrastructure which redistributes the work of verification to those least equipped to bear it.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by laypeople to resolve real legal problems, against a backdrop of persistent access-to-justice deficits. This article presents evidence that the practical force of AI-generated legal advice depends not on its accuracy but on the social production of its credibility. While existing research has assessed the accuracy of legal AI, less is known about how machine-generated guidance is verified and made credible enough for lay users to act on. Drawing on a dual-method analysis of 153 Reddit narratives and 5,341 community reactions, this article maps a spectrum of verification practices. At one end, a minority of users verify AI-generated legal advice by triangulating across models, and some submit AI-generated guidance to platform communities for evaluation before acting, a configuration we term distributed counsel. Far more commonly, however, narratives are silent on verification. AI-generated legal advice is acted on the strength of its lawyer-like form and emotional reassurance alone. These findings show that AI-assisted legal self-help operates within an emerging informal infrastructure which redistributes the work of verification to those least equipped to bear it.