Legal cut-and-paste with AI as a layperson: still not a wise idea

AI, Contract Law

10 July 2025

Legal cut-and-paste with AI as a layperson: still not a wise idea

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

We increasingly see entrepreneurs drafting legal documents themselves based on a template found online or via AI tools such as ChatGPT. At first glance, this seems an attractive, cost-saving option, but the opposite is true. Those are the dispute cases that end up on our desk. Cheap turns out to be costly in the end.

In this blog we discuss two recent rulings that make clear why tailor-made legal work is indispensable.

Picking up documents from the internet

A ruling by the District Court of Midden-Nederland (ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2025:173) made clear how risky it is to pick up contracts from the internet without legal guidance. In this case, the parties had signed an English-language “Agreement of Intent,” an online template. However, neither party understood English particularly well. Moreover, the document referred to a “foundation agreement,” a type of agreement that Dutch law does not recognise at all.

The court concluded that the text of the document had little legal value. The parties had signed something that may have looked professional, but legally amounted to little. The consequence of this was that the agreement could be validly dissolved and that one of the parties had to repay significant sums of money on the basis of the obligation to undo performance already rendered.

This case shows how important tailor-made work is: a truly good contract does not start with Google, but with tailor-made work by someone who speaks the language and truly understands the law. Someone who can translate the parties’ wishes into a solid legal document that holds up once it is relied upon. If the text is crystal clear, the parties may not even need to go to court – that is the value of a good contract.

ChatGPT as contract drafter

In another case (ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:1925), a party tried to get out of an agreement by arguing that it had been drawn up via ChatGPT and therefore had less value and could not serve as the basis for the claim. According to the defendant, the agreement was invalid.

The subdistrict court made short work of that: “Even if this agreement was drawn up by someone else or by ChatGPT, that does not change the fact that the agreement is legally valid and that the parties must comply with the arrangements agreed in it.” As long as both parties agreed to the content, the agreement is legally valid. What we see here is that people blindly trust ChatGPT and sign, or that they take too little time to actually read what is written. ChatGPT generates reams of text extremely quickly, but that text of course still needs to be carefully read through before it is used to make binding arrangements that often also carry financial consequences. That remains human, tailor-made work, and therefore specialist work.

Not to mention that ChatGPT is not a legal AI tool and does not use reliable legal sources either. So as a non-lawyer, you cannot rely on it.

Lesson for entrepreneurs

Do you use AI tools or standard documents from the internet? Then be extremely careful. What looks professional is not necessarily legally sound in substance. Do not blindly trust what you find online or what an AI generates, but always have your documents substantively reviewed by a lawyer. It is also often about the questions that are not asked, or the prompts that are not given to AI, and that can only be given by a lawyer. A lawyer oversees the whole legal playing field and knows which facts and circumstances are relevant and which are not.

Do you need help drafting or reviewing legal documents? The corporate lawyers at The Legal Company are happy to help. Feel free to contact us via info@thelegalcompany.nl or call 020 345 0152.

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.