How would you know when a conveyancing AI is wrong?
Summary
The article argues that conveyancing firms should not trust AI tools simply because they produce fluent, confident answers. It says suppliers should be asked how accuracy was measured, against what benchmark, and how the tool performs on high-risk errors, especially where outputs are relied on as assurances.
Why it matters
Residential property surveyors increasingly work alongside conveyancers and rely on transaction data and legal outputs that may be AI-assisted. Understanding the limits of AI-generated conveyancing advice is important because errors can affect title, risk allocation, and completion outcomes.
Key points
- Fluent AI responses can still be wrong, so presentation is not evidence of accuracy.
- Firms should ask how the tool was tested, who set the ground truth, and whether the benchmark is fixed.
- Accuracy should be assessed by severity, not just overall percentage.
- Outputs that amount to assurances need stronger validation than prompts or suggestions.
- The article notes growing use of insured AI conveyancing products and the role of measurable risk.
Organisations:
Legal Services Board, First Title, Orbital Witness, Moverly, LMS, Connells Group, Property Data Trust Framework
Regulations:
Property Data Trust Framework
Read the original article
This is an RPSA summary of a publicly available article. The full content remains with the original publisher.
