Why legal firms need to rethink AI in client communications

Ask most law firms what they think about AI in client communications, and you will get one of two responses. Either a cautious "we're watching the space" or a confident "our clients expect a human, full stop."

Both positions are understandable. Both are also, at least in part, wrong.

New research commissioned by Moneypenny, surveying 2,000 nationally representative UK consumers in June 2026, tells a more nuanced story. Legal is the sector most resistant to AI of all those we tested. But resistance is not the same as rejection, and the gap between the two matters enormously for firms thinking about how to handle client communications more effectively.

The headline: legal is the hardest sector to crack

When we asked consumers which parts of a legal communication they would be comfortable handling via an AI system, 38% said no parts at all. That is the highest "no parts" figure of any sector we tested, higher than healthcare, care homes, automotive or GP communications.

On the face of it, that looks like a clear signal to keep AI well away from client-facing interactions.

But look at the other 62%, and a different picture emerges.

Nearly a third are comfortable with AI for initial enquiries

29% of consumers said they would be comfortable making an initial enquiry to a law firm via an AI system. That is close to one in three potential clients, and a proportion no firm with a growth agenda can afford to ignore.

Source: Moneypenny / Censuswide research, 2,000 UK consumers, June 2026.

None of these figures are overwhelming. But combined, they point to something important: clients are not uniformly resistant to AI in legal settings. They are selectively open to it, in specific circumstances, for specific tasks. The question for law firms is whether they are set up to meet that openness, or whether an all-or-nothing approach is leaving both efficiency and client experience on the table.

Age changes everything

The overall figures become even more instructive when you look at the generational breakdown.

Among 18 to 24-year-olds, only 26% said they would be uncomfortable with AI for any part of a legal interaction, compared to 50% of those aged 55 and over. Baby Boomers specifically reach 51%. Millennials (29 to 44) sit at just 28% resistance, significantly closer to the youngest cohort than to older generations.

What this means for your firm

The clients who are most resistant to AI today are, over time, being joined and eventually outnumbered by clients who have grown up with AI-powered tools as part of everyday life. Firms that dismiss AI on the basis of current client attitudes risk being poorly positioned for the relationships they will need to sustain in five to ten years.

Even within the current client base, a sizeable proportion of the people contacting a firm right now are open to AI-assisted interactions for lower-stakes tasks. If a firm's intake process cannot serve those clients efficiently, it is creating unnecessary friction at precisely the moment a first impression is being formed.

Where the resistance actually comes from

Legal matters are, by their nature, often stressful, high-stakes and deeply personal. Someone contacting a law firm may be dealing with a divorce, a bereavement, a business dispute or a personal injury claim. They want to feel heard, understood and in safe hands, and that expectation of human empathy is entirely reasonable.

The risk with AI in this context is not that it handles an enquiry. It is that it handles it badly. A clunky, impersonal or confusing experience at the first point of contact does not just frustrate a potential client. It signals something about the firm itself. For a sector built on trust and reputation, that is a genuine commercial risk.

But here is the other side of that argument. A missed call, a voicemail that goes unreturned, or a new enquiry that has to wait until Monday because it came in on Friday afternoon: these are also signals. They also damage the first impression. They also cost the firm potential instructions.

The choice is not between AI and human contact. It is between serving clients well at every point of contact and not doing so.

What good looks like in legal

The firms getting AI right in client communications are not replacing human interaction. They are using AI to extend their reach and protect their responsiveness, making sure that when a human is needed, they are available quickly and with the right context.

Handling out-of-hours enquiries. A potential client who calls on a Friday evening is not going to wait until Monday. If no one answers, they will call the next firm on their list. An AI that takes the initial enquiry, captures the key details and sets the right expectation is far better than a voicemail.

Managing high call volumes without dropping enquiries. Even during office hours, busy periods mean calls go unanswered. Every missed call from a new enquirer is a missed instruction. AI that handles the overflow, capturing, qualifying and routing the right calls, protects that revenue without additional headcount.

Handling administrative requests efficiently. Requests for case updates, appointment confirmations and billing queries do not need a fee earner's time. AI that handles these accurately and immediately frees up the people who need to focus on client work.

Creating a warm, seamless handover to a human. The moment a caller's needs exceed what AI can handle, the transition needs to be fast, natural and informed. The worst experience is being transferred to someone who knows nothing about why you called. The best feels like a conversation that simply continues with a different person.

Telephone answering, outsourced switchboard and AI Receptionist services tailored to legal firms. Fewer missed calls, better first impressions, more time for your fee earners.

The intake problem no one talks about

There is a specific challenge in legal that the data points to without quite naming: the client intake process.

For many firms, the first call is also the qualification call. Someone rings, explains their situation, and a fee earner or paralegal determines whether the firm can help, what the likely scope is and whether the matter is worth taking on. It is a process that takes time, requires skill, and often happens at a moment when the team is already stretched.

AI can play a meaningful role here. Not by making legal judgements, but by gathering the initial information that allows a human to make those judgements more efficiently. A well-configured AI that captures a caller's name, contact details, the nature of their matter and their timeline before passing them to a lawyer does not diminish the client experience. For many clients, particularly younger ones, it actually improves it. They get an immediate response. Their details are captured accurately. And the fee earner they speak to is already prepared.

This is exactly the kind of task that 29% of consumers in our research said they were comfortable handling via AI. The opportunity is there. The question is whether firms are positioned to act on it.

The risk of doing nothing

The argument for leaving AI out of legal client communications entirely usually rests on client expectations: our clients are not ready for it; our clients expect a human.

The data does not fully support that position. A meaningful proportion of clients, particularly younger ones, are not only ready for AI-assisted interactions but actively comfortable with them for certain tasks. And the proportion resistant to AI in legal settings, while the highest of any sector we tested, is still only 38%. The majority of legal clients are open to at least some degree of AI involvement.

More importantly, the alternative to AI is not always a human. It is sometimes a missed call, a voicemail, a delayed response, or an overworked receptionist reading from an inconsistent script. If the choice is between a well-designed AI intake experience and an inconsistent human one, the AI may well deliver the better first impression.

The firms that will win on client experience over the next decade are not those that hold most rigidly to human-only communications. They are those that think carefully about where human judgement and warmth is genuinely irreplaceable, make sure those interactions are protected and brilliant, and use every other touchpoint as an opportunity to be more efficient and more responsive.

Key takeaways

• 38% of UK consumers are not comfortable using AI for any part of a legal communication, the highest resistance of any sector tested
• 62% are open to AI for at least some tasks, including initial enquiries (29%), questionnaires (27%) and case updates (22%)
• Resistance is strongly age-related: 50% of over-55s say no parts vs 26% of 18 to 24-year-olds
• The risk of over-relying on human-only communication is missed calls, inconsistent intake and lost instructions
• The best approach uses AI to handle volume, out-of-hours and administrative tasks, with a fast and informed handover to a human

Handle more enquiries without missing a single call

Moneypenny handles inbound calls in your firm's name, qualifies new enquiries and transfers them to the right person, in hours and out of hours. See how we support legal firms.

Frequently asked questions

• Is AI appropriate for legal client communications?

Yes, selectively. Our research shows that 29% of consumers are comfortable using AI for an initial legal enquiry, with further proportions comfortable with questionnaires, case updates and billing. The key is matching AI to the right tasks, administrative, transactional and out-of-hours interactions, while ensuring a fast, warm handover to a human for anything requiring empathy, judgement or sensitivity.

• What percentage of consumers are resistant to AI in legal settings?

38% said they would not be comfortable using AI for any part of a legal communication, the highest of any sector tested in Moneypenny's June 2026 research of 2,000 UK consumers. That means 62% are open to AI for at least some tasks.

• Which legal clients are most open to AI?

Younger clients are significantly more open. Only 26% of 18 to 24-year-olds said they were uncomfortable with AI for any part of a legal interaction, compared to 50% of those aged 55 and over. Millennials (29 to 44) sit at 28% resistance, much closer to the youngest cohort than to older generations.

• What tasks are legal clients most comfortable handling via AI?

Initial enquiries (29%), completing a questionnaire (27%), requesting a case update (22%) and settling a bill (17%) are the tasks legal clients are most open to handling via AI.

• How does Moneypenny support law firms with client communications?

Moneypenny provides telephone answering, outsourced switchboard and AI Receptionist services tailored to legal firms. Our team handles inbound calls in your firm's name, qualifies new enquiries, captures client details and transfers calls to the right person, in hours and out of hours.

Research conducted by Censuswide on behalf of Moneypenny, June 2026. Sample: 2,000 nationally representative UK consumers.