As people switch over to using ChatGPT for legal advice, there's going to be a wealth of materials available for discovery in litigation. ChatGPT conversations aren't privileged legal advice. They can't be. They aren't. Only lawyers can give you privilege when you're seeking legal advice.
Privilege is a benefit of legal advice that's often overlooked because it's rarely triggered. Almost always, no one will be asking for your notes and records. But in a combative situation, such as a regulatory investigation or a lawsuit, those documents and notes are essential to turn over to the other side. Legal privilege is one of the only ways to lawfully put a stop to that. In Canada it's particularly strong, but this same right exists all over the world.
Privilege is fundamental to ensuring a law-abiding society (when paired with professional obligations like never assisting with breaking laws). Privilege gives people a zone where they can be frank, and get advice that pushes them back to a lawful path. Lawyers have this special characteristic that’s sprinkled out into all of their work. Yes there’s ways to lose privilege and people make mistakes about what it really covers, but at its core this is a true statement about how the law works. It’s a good reason to hire a lawyer. And especially so if it’s something unusual or that the government might investigate.
Privilege is one difference between hiring a lawyer and hiring a "compliance" professional. The difference between compliance and legal is that legal will most often have privilege covering their advice whereas compliance doesn’t. This alone might mean that a lawyer is the right choice for a job that could potentially be done by other professionals. It may also be the case that the lawyer can supervise another person and then cover their work with privilege. Keeping lawyers in the loop is important.
Privilege is a reason to pay extra. Even if two service providers might provide the same quality answer (which they might!). Although I’d say it’s a lot tougher of a choice when the non-lawyer is also an expert and the lawyer isn’t very good at giving advice (which papens!). But even a bad lawyer can likely extend their zone of privilege around the work being done by the people who aren’t lawyers. Since so much legal advice is given out in the context of lawyers working with non-lawyers it’s an important benefit that can boost others around the lawyer, providing a team benefit.
There's a variety of types of privilege, and contested areas (which lawyers are familiar with). But it's easy to lose sight of the overall, which is that privilege exists, is strong, and it's presumptive (generally) in litigation. These are huge benefits to people in regulated industries, or to businesspeople trying to navigate an area frought with legal risk, such as cryptocurrency.