Co-op Legal Services uses AI to score advisers’ customer calls

Co-op Legal Services is using AI to record, analyse and score calls between some of its advisers and customers seeking help with probate, wills and estates, the Guardian reported on 8 October 2026. The system gives managers a detailed assessment of conversations that can involve recently bereaved clients, raising questions about how staff are monitored and how the scores are used.

The technology assesses more than 50 aspects of a call and produces percentage and pass-or-fail scores, according to the Guardian. Managers use the results to analyse employee performance. The company says the system supports coaching and service quality, while one worker told the newspaper that monitoring every word created a sense of distrust.

How Co-op Legal Services scores customer calls

The Guardian said the system was introduced in the preceding couple of months and is understood to cover dozens of legal services staff. Its report did not establish an exact start date or the total number of employees affected. One worker said AI monitoring could continue for several hours of their working day as they handled customer inquiries.

The report said the scores are used in part to identify ways staff can improve sales performance. It did not explain how individual aspects of a call are weighted or whether a worker can challenge a score. It also did not establish whether scores influence pay or disciplinary decisions. Those gaps matter when assessing the practical effect of the system on employees.

What Co-op says the AI system does

Co-op told the Guardian that AI is a support tool, not a decision-maker. It said the technology helps leaders support colleagues and improve the experience of clients seeking advice at a difficult time. The company said it did not recognise the worker’s criticism and described its probate advisers as highly engaged.

Caoilionn Hurley, managing director of Co-op Life Services, which includes legal services, said AI lets the company review all customer conversations and provide more informed coaching and development. She said human judgment, accountability, care and kindness remain central to client relationships. The company’s account establishes its stated purpose; it does not answer every question about how an individual score is assessed or acted upon.

Workplace monitoring and the wider evidence

Communication Workers Union national officer John Chadfield told the Guardian that AI monitoring can intensify working lives and argued that computer systems should not act as managers. Hayfa Mohdzaini, a senior policy and practice adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said structured performance feedback changes the workplace and that it remains to be seen how managers adjust. These are assessments of the practice, rather than findings that Co-op employees have suffered a particular outcome.

An April 2026 International Labour Organization working paper examines the possible psychosocial effects of AI at work, including monitoring and algorithmic management. It describes emerging evidence linking surveillance of this kind with adverse effects, while stressing that research remains limited and is still developing. The paper does not examine Co-op Legal Services, so its findings cannot show what this system has done to the company’s staff or clients.

The ILO paper cites a US survey of 1,273 workers in which 46% of those who said their productivity was monitored all the time agreed that they worked too fast, compared with 15% of those who said they were never monitored electronically. It also reports that 53% of the always-monitored group felt anxious at work all or some of the time. Those figures describe associations in a separate survey, not proof that monitoring caused those feelings or evidence about Co-op.

The Guardian reported other recent examples of employers adopting or reconsidering worker monitoring, including a Burger King tool announced in the United States and Meta’s pause of employee keystroke tracking. Those examples place Co-op’s move in a broader workplace debate but do not establish how its own system operates. The reporting leaves open who can access call recordings, how long they are retained, what safeguards apply and whether staff were consulted.