Co-op Legal Services uses AI to score probate advisers’ calls
Co-op Legal Services has introduced AI monitoring technology that records and analyses all phone calls made by probate advisers to customers. A whistleblower has described the system as "oppressive and dystopian", and it represents part of a wider trend of AI workplace surveillance that experts warn increases worker stress and raises serious concerns about privacy and autonomy.
The AI system, built using OpenAI technology, assesses more than 50 aspects of each call and provides pass/fail scores to managers, whilst also tracking sales performance. Workers report being monitored continuously throughout the day, particularly when handling sensitive calls from bereaved customers seeking advice on probate and wills. The monitoring follows similar deployments at companies like Burger King and Meta, prompting trade unions and the International Labour Organization to warn about the lack of regulatory frameworks and the psychological risks to workers.
- Co-op Legal Services monitors all probate adviser calls with AI scoring systems.
- Workers say constant surveillance feels dystopian and increases stress and distrust.
- Trade unions oppose rising workplace AI monitoring amid absence of regulation.
New here? Start with this
Co-op Legal Services has introduced an artificial intelligence system that records and analyses phone calls between its advisers and customers. The technology scores more than fifty different aspects of each call and provides pass or fail ratings, creating continuous performance assessment of workers throughout their day.
AI-based workplace monitoring is becoming increasingly common across different industries, with similar systems deployed at companies including Burger King and Meta. This trend has prompted concerns about worker privacy and autonomy, and trade unions have warned that few adequate regulatory frameworks currently exist to govern how such monitoring is implemented.
Workers and union representatives have raised concerns about the constant monitoring and its potential impact on staff wellbeing. The International Labour Organisation and other bodies have warned that these systems may pose risks to workers' mental health and autonomy without proper safeguards or oversight.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Companies and management argue that continuous AI monitoring ensures quality control, regulatory compliance, and protection of vulnerable customers seeking probate advice. The system objectively assesses performance across multiple criteria and identifies training needs and best practices, whilst sales tracking helps ensure business viability. Such oversight represents a transparent, automated alternative to inconsistent human supervision and is commonplace in regulated professional environments.
The case against
Workers and privacy advocates contend that pervasive AI surveillance creates an oppressive, dehumanizing workplace that undermines employee autonomy and mental wellbeing, particularly when advisers must manage sensitive conversations with bereaved customers. The multi-criteria scoring and sales tracking create unreasonable pressure that encourages metrics-chasing over genuine empathy, whilst the absence of regulatory frameworks leaves workers vulnerable with no legal protections or external oversight of the technology's psychological impact or scope.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Guardian as “Co-op Legal Services using AI to rate workers’ phone calls to customers”.