AI Slop Is Clogging Europe's Legal Work—Here's the Fix

Jan de Vries · 2026-10-27

Europe's startup scene has been on a tear, building all sorts of generative and agentic AI tools. But somewhere along the way, we've drowned in a sea of slop. You see it everywhere—from LinkedIn posts to everyday corporate drivel. And now, it's creeping into legal work. AI was supposed to make our lives easier. Instead, many of us are dealing with what Jamie Bartlett, author and BBC journalist, calls "the burden of AI clog." Cleaning up this mess takes time, so AI isn't saving us anything—it's actually creating more work. ### The Slop Spreads to Legal Work Contract negotiations and other legal tasks are now stuck in lengthy review cycles, thanks to AI. Even the folks who draft laws are swimming in slop. In the US, the Office of the Legislative Counsel is reportedly overwhelmed by error-riddled drafts generated by AI. ### The Problem Isn't AI Itself LegalTech has come a long way, and there are plenty of tools to help with legal work. But their output? Varies wildly. And some law firms still don't have a proper policy for AI use, so teams end up relying on general LLMs like ChatGPT or Claude for drafting and reviewing. When contracts get amended in negotiations, they often come back saturated with red lines. AI editors rip and replace content, but the changes lack insight and relevance. This isn't how you negotiate—it's likely to aggravate the other party. Judgement and discretion go out the window. Many tools can't tell the difference between dogmatically applying the law and letting things slide to move a negotiation forward. ### Unnecessary Redlining Can Be Stopped This is a problem Europe's startups can solve. There are ways to keep legal work from turning into slop and prevent revisions from becoming an infinite ping pong match between AI agents. The key is judicious editing—where the tool knows when to leave things alone. Amendments should be minimal and aligned with a well-defined playbook. > "The focus needs to be on judicious editing, where the tool knows when to leave something alone." This playbook sets out a firm's position, policies, and approach. It defines what's acceptable and what isn't. The tool scans for compliance issues, conflicts, and highlights differences. Then it suggests edits that align with the playbook and offer the best-case scenario for the company. This approach is more likely to bridge the gap between parties and reach consensus faster, without human intervention. ### AI Should Be a Blessing, Not a Burden When used correctly, legal AI can be a blessing. It means more work can be done in-house before calling outside counsel. Such tools can act as mediation portals, where differences are highlighted and evaluated first, instead of text being ruthlessly red-lined. The excessive redlining needs to stop, along with the AI slop and the clog it creates. Right now, users put up with it, complaining about the extra work AI creates. But soon, the slop won't be tolerated. We expect the bar to be raised for AI-enabled work. Expectations will shift, and users will demand AI tools that edit precisely, relevantly, and insightfully.