Artificial intelligence tools are becoming part of everyday life, including in the workplace and hiring process. But when it comes to security clearance issues, relying too heavily on AI-generated legal guidance could create serious problems.
Attorney Elisabeth Baker-Pham joined me to discuss why tools like ChatGPT and Claude should never replace qualified legal counsel in clearance matters. One of the biggest concerns? AI can sound extremely confident while being completely wrong. Baker-Pham explained that AI systems are not trained specifically on the constantly evolving nuances of security clearance law, agency-specific policies, or recent DOHA decisions. Instead, many AI platforms pull information from across the internet—including inaccurate or outdated sources.
That becomes especially risky in a clearance process built around nuance and the “whole person concept.” There is rarely a one-size-fits-all answer in adjudications. Context matters, and broad AI-generated guidance often fails to account for the details that can significantly impact a case.
The conversation also highlighted the importance of authenticity in written responses. Clearance adjudicators are evaluating honesty, credibility, and judgment—not just polished writing. AI-generated statements that lack personal voice or appear overly generic may undermine trust in the process.
Another major issue is privacy. Conversations with an attorney are protected by attorney-client privilege, while information entered into AI tools generally is not. In some legal situations, that distinction could become critical.
When careers, investigations, and national security responsibilities are on the line, there is no substitute for human judgment, legal expertise, and telling your own story in your own words.
