Recently, I needed some contracts and policies reviewed for my company, anosa.ai.
Most of the law firms I contacted worked the same way. A 30-minute meeting first, some free and some paid, then a detailed custom quote, then a retainer agreement to sign. My request was simple: review a handful of contract templates, one time, no ongoing relationship. The process felt heavier than the job.
Then I found a firm positioning itself as "AI-enabled". Because their lawyers use AI, they said, the review takes less time and effort, so their cost to clients is lower than a conventional firm.
Exactly what I was looking for!
I use AI heavily myself. If someone tells me that work which used to take five hours now takes two, and that they will bill me for two, I will say that is a good use of AI. That is the firm I want. I was ready to sign.
Before I did, I read the terms and found something I didn't expect.
What I Was Actually Buying
The terms appeared to frame my purchase primarily as "access to an AI-enabled platform" — not as a lawyer reviewing my documents.
Human lawyers would still be involved in the final review. But the conventional lawyer-client engagement, the one that normally sits underneath this kind of work, did not appear to be formed. The contractual scope and the allocation of responsibility were different from what I expect when I hire a law firm.
Here is what that means in practice. If the delivered review had a hole in it and my company got into trouble because of it, the firm would not stand behind the work — because there was no lawyer-client relationship backing whatever their software had performed.
We were not looking for an AI tool that can review a contract. We already have AI tools, and they do a pretty decent job. We were looking for a qualified lawyer who uses AI to work more efficiently while still providing the professional judgment and accountability we are hiring a lawyer for in the first place.
Those two things look similar, but not the same.
What Bothered Me Wasn't The AI
I'm glad I read the terms. I felt deceived.
Not because they use AI. Their use of AI is the reason I contacted them in the first place. What bothered me was the gap between what "AI-enabled legal services" sounded like and what the terms actually said.
There is a real difference between these two sentences:
"We use AI, so we deliver our professional service more efficiently."
"We use AI, so what you are buying is a different type of service, with a different allocation of responsibility."
Both models may have a place. But the customer needs to know which one they are buying, and that information should not be buried in the fine print.
Two Questions To Ask Before You Sign
AI washing - attaching the word "AI" to something in a way that manufactures value that isn't actually there - is happening in a lot of places right now. It won't always look like fraud. Often it looks like a discount, or improvement.
So before signing anything with an AI label on it, I encourage all of us to ask two questions:
1. What exactly are we paying them to deliver?
2. What are they responsible for once they deliver it?
Of course, these are important questions to clarify even without "AI" in it - but in this AI era, it seems they are more important than ever.
Using AI Is Not A Bad Thing
To be clear, I want to work with people who use AI. I wrote how we look for business partners who can utilize AI it in this blog. Running anosa.ai and GetItDoneWith.AI, I want to squeeze every hour of efficiency I can out of it. Choosing a firm that refuses to touch AI is not an option I'm interested in.
But if the efficiency comes from quietly removing the part of the service that created the value, that is not a discount - it is a completely different product.
AI genuinely can make professional services faster, cheaper, and better. But as many services and products start to put "AI" in everything they do - we must be able to look past the label and see what is actually behind it.
Has this happened to any of you? Is "AI-washing" becoming more common in your industry?