AI-assisted complaints now account for about half of the files the Legal Ombudsman examined in research it published on 1 October. LeO reviewed 100 complaint files drawn at random from every area of law and found signs of AI use in 51 of them, then looked at 100 residential conveyancing files and found the same in 50.
The research has two parts, and only one of them is about law firms. Ipsos surveyed 2,196 adults aged 16 to 75 in England and Wales between 13 and 17 March 2026, asking about complaints against any regulated service, so its figures describe consumers in general rather than your clients. Of the 22 per cent who had made or considered a formal complaint in the previous year, 54 per cent had used an AI tool along the way. The casework review is the part that speaks to your firm, because every one of those files is a complaint about legal services. It follows the research on clients using AI chatbots to check their solicitor's advice, and it shows where that habit ends up when the client is unhappy.
What the Ombudsman found in the letters
LeO drew up 18 indicators of AI drafting. The commonest were heavy formatting such as text set in bold, references to law or regulatory requirements that did not stand up to checking, and no clear statement of what the client wanted done. Its guidance for providers adds that it has seen citations to cases that do not exist and conduct rules that are misquoted or invented.
AI did not always make matters worse. Among the files showing AI use, the Ombudsman judged that it helped resolution in 33 per cent and hindered it in 35 per cent, and the helpful letters were short, clear and aimed at a remedy. Heavier use went with worse outcomes, since 46 per cent of the files with a high level of AI use were judged to have hurt resolution.
The survey adds a finding that cuts the other way. Of the people who used AI to decide whether to complain, 79 per cent said it influenced them, and more were steered away from complaining (47 per cent) than towards it (32 per cent). Use splits sharply by age, at 70 per cent of under-35s against 16 per cent of those aged 55 to 75. Phil Cain, the Chief Ombudsman, put it this way: “AI is rapidly becoming another voice in the complaints process.” That voice now sits between some of your clients and your complaints procedure, and you have no sight of what it tells them.
How to answer a complaint a chatbot wrote
The Ombudsman published a Spotlight for providers alongside the research, and its central advice is to treat an AI-written letter as though a friend had drafted it for the client. Reply to the person you know, in the tone they use with you, and not to the legal voice on the page. A response that matches the letter's jargon pushes the two sides apart, and the client may paste your reply into the same tool and come back with a harder letter.
Write in plain English, and where the letter does not sound like the client you have dealt with, offer a telephone call or a meeting before you put anything in writing. Follow the procedure you publish on your website. If a long letter full of case references needs more time to research, tell the client about the change and the reason for it at once. The eight-week period still runs, after which the client may take the complaint to the Ombudsman, and a finding that your own handling fell short becomes a second problem.
The guidance accepts that you may use AI on your side, provided the aim stays resolving the complaint rather than defending the firm. Think about confidentiality before you paste a complaint into an open tool, since the letter carries the client's name and the facts of the matter. Whatever leaves the office on your letterhead is yours, whoever drafted it.
This week, give whoever handles complaints the Spotlight to read, and check that your procedure says what happens when a complaint needs extra time. Add a line to your AI use policy on whether staff may use an approved tool to summarise or answer complaints. Then go back through the last few complaints you received and ask whether a chatbot wrote any of them. If one did, the pattern the Ombudsman describes has already reached your firm.
The Ombudsman's research briefing, AI and complaints: removing barriers, reinforcing divides?, is open to any reader as a PDF on legalombudsman.org.uk, and its Spotlight for providers sits on the same site without any sign-up.
If you want your complaints procedure and your AI policy to give the same answer when a chatbot's letter arrives, start with a conversation.
