Half of people would trust AI to help write their will, survey finds

Almost half of people in the US and UK would trust artificial intelligence to help write their will, according to a survey that highlights growing openness to AI in low-risk legal tasks – but a deep reluctance to hand over full control without human oversight.

The research, commissioned by legal intelligence platform Robin AI and conducted by Perspectus Global, polled over 4,100 adults across both markets. It found that 47% of respondents would feel comfortable outsourcing the writing of a will to an AI-powered system. Similarly, 49% said they would trust AI to review a rental agreement, and 46% would use it to challenge a parking ticket.

However, enthusiasm for AI in law quickly falls away for more emotionally or legally complex matters. Only 17% said they would trust AI to assist with divorce or redundancy disputes, and just 11% would rely on it for criminal defence work.

What’s more, only one in ten people said they fully trust law firms, while an overwhelming majority described Big Law as “expensive”, “elitist”, or “intimidating.” Trust in AI alone remains even lower: just 4% of respondents said they would trust a robot lawyer acting independently. Instead, the vast majority preferred a traditional lawyer (69%) or a lawyer supported by AI tools (27%). Richard Robinson, CEO and Founder of Robin AI, said:

“The legal industry needs serious reform. People want faster, cheaper legal help, but not at the expense of human judgment. We’re doubling down on building AI to work alongside lawyers, not instead of them, as a result of this survey.”

The public appears willing to draw a clear line between low-stakes legal administration and higher-risk, emotionally charged cases. While they are increasingly open to AI reviewing contracts and writing wills, 61% said they would not trust AI to assist in criminal law, and only 27% believe an AI-powered paralegal could perform at the same standard as a human lawyer.

Cost remains a major driver. When asked what would encourage them to use AI in legal services, the top answers were lower cost (47%), 24/7 availability (35%), and faster resolution times (35%). On average, respondents said they would need to see a 57% discount compared to traditional services to choose an AI-only option.

Nearly two-thirds (64%) described it as “expensive,” while 34% said it’s “for rich people” and 30% found it “intimidating.” Only 10% believe legal services are truly accessible to everyone, with more than half saying good legal advice is only available if you can afford it. Robinson said:

“The current legal system wasn’t built for speed, transparency, or accessibility – it was built for those who could afford to wait, navigate the jargon, and pay the bill. When 90% of people say legal services aren’t truly accessible, that’s more than a bug –  it’s a systemic problem.”

He argued that AI, properly regulated and human-led, could offer a rare opportunity to rebuild legal services to be faster, cheaper, and more widely available.

While attitudes toward legal AI were broadly similar across the UK and US, some differences emerged. Support for mandatory AI safety or compliance training for lawyers was higher in the UK (82%) than in the US (76%). UK respondents were also slightly more likely to describe the legal system as “elitist” (23% compared to 18% in the US).

Trust in large corporate law firms was slightly stronger in the US, where 13% said they trusted Big Law “a great deal,” compared to just 8% in the UK.

Despite concerns about trust, many respondents see real potential in legal AI. People associated it with being more affordable (47%), less biased (38%), more accurate (24%), and more transparent (21%) — but only if it remains under human control.