---
title: "Review a client-facing chatbot or intake script against the no-advice line"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/client-facing-and-access-to-justice-ai-tools/review-a-client-facing-chatbot-or-intake-script-against-the-no-advice-li"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A43-T1-R1"
practice_area: "Client-facing & access-to-justice AI tools"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Review a client-facing chatbot or intake script against the no-advice line

> From the script and sample transcripts, list answers that look like tailored advice, missing escalations and data-handling gaps.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/client-facing-and-access-to-justice-ai-tools/review-a-client-facing-chatbot-or-intake-script-against-the-no-advice-li  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Client-facing & access-to-justice AI tools](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/client-facing-and-access-to-justice-ai-tools.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | From the script and sample transcripts, list answers that look like tailored advice, missing escalations and data-handling gaps. |
| What the lawyer must review | Have an admitted practitioner own the advice layer Approve scope, disclaimers, escalation and data handling before launch Re-approve them after every material change |
| Written for / versions | 2 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Define the proposed assistance and confirm its permitted scope before using an AI tool.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
2. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/client-facing-and-access-to-justice-ai-tools/review-a-client-facing-chatbot-or-intake-script-against-the-no-advice-li/united-states.md) | Red |
| [New Zealand](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/client-facing-and-access-to-justice-ai-tools/review-a-client-facing-chatbot-or-intake-script-against-the-no-advice-li/new-zealand.md) | Red |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*