New England Biz Law Update
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technology is advancing exponentially compared to technologies of years past. The pace of change is happening so quickly that it’s hard to keep up. One way to track the impact of GenAI tools on the legal profession is through survey reports, so I’m always interested when new ones are released that include data on perspectives about and rates of adoption of GenAI by lawyers.
This year, two reports with a similar focus were released. In mid-April, Thomson Reuters published the “2024 Generative AI in Professional Services Report,” (TR Report). The survey was conducted in January and February 2024, and included data on law firm use of GenAI.
Earlier in the year, the “2024 MyCase + LawPay Legal Industry Report,” (ML Report) was released. The survey for that report occurred during August and September of 2023, and the report was released in January.
Comparing statistics from the two reports provides useful benchmarks that highlight trends in GenAI usage by legal professionals.
The reports showed that the number of legal professionals who personally used GenAI tools for work-related reasons held steady, with 27% of respondents from both surveys using GenAI for work-related purposes.
Similarly, the data regarding how often those same individuals used GenAI was remarkably similar across the surveys. According to the TR Survey results, 42% of legal professionals who were actively using or planning to use GenAI were using the technology at least daily, and 31% were using it weekly. The ML data showed that legal professionals whose firms had adopted GenAI frequently relied on it throughout their workday, with 42% using it daily and 29% using it weekly.
Another interesting finding from the ML Report was that for those already using GenAI, for 53%, efficiency increased somewhat and for 24% it increased significantly.
The tasks accomplished with GenAI were similar across both reports as well. According to the TR Report respondents, the top five use cases in law firms were legal research, document review, brief or memo drafting, document summarization, and drafting correspondence.
For the ML report, the top use case was brainstorming (58%), followed by drafting correspondence followed (55%), general research (as opposed to legal research) (46%), document drafting (42%), drafting document templates (39%), summarizing documents (38%) and editing documents (34%).
Concerns uniquely related to the issues presented when GenAI tools are used by legal professionals were also mirrored across the reports. The top worry of respondents from the TR Report was inaccurate responses, cited by 79%. This was followed by data security (68%); privacy and confidentiality of data (62%); compliance with laws and regulations (60%); and ethical and responsible usage (57%).
The top blockers identified in the ML Report were lack of knowledge about the technology (52%), concerns about ethical issues (39%), lack of trust in GAI output (39%), the infancy of the technology (33%) and concerns about privilege issues (25%).
Other notable data from the TR report addressed judicial perspectives on GenAI and the legal billing ramifications. First, survey responses highlighted the distrust and reticence about GenAI often expressed by members of our nation’s courts. Of the court respondents, only 8% indicated that their court systems were using or planned to use GenAI, and 60% reported there were no current plans to use it.
The perceived impact of GenAI on legal billing rates and methods was also explored. Notably, the majority of legal professionals, 58%, did not believe that GenAI would have any effect on the rates charged to clients. Over a third (39%), however, believed GenAI would lead to an increase in alternative fee arrangements. I tend to agree with those respondents and think there is a significant likelihood that sophisticated legal consumers like insurance companies and corporate counsel will put pressure on their legal providers to use GenAI to work more efficiently and thus charge more competitive, predictable legal fees.
Last but not least, the ML Report provided insight into how legal professionals expected GenAI to affect hiring practices. The survey results showed that 28% of firms planned to replace administrative functions with GenAI, followed by legal-specific functions (18%) and currently outsourced functions (13%). Another 10% shared that their firms intended to fully replace an administrative employee and 2% hoped to replace a lawyer.
These surveys highlight the steady pace of adoption of GenAI tools by legal professionals with the end result being enhanced efficiency and reduced workflow frictions. Despite the ongoing and valid concerns about accuracy and ethical issues, the legal profession has warmed up to GenAI far more quickly than the technologies that preceded it and is gradually integrating GenAI into law firm operations.
The times they are a-changin’ like never before. Now, more than ever, it’s essential to be open-minded and curious about emerging technologies, lest you be left behind.
Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney, author, journalist, and the Head of SME and External Education at MyCase and LawPay, AffiniPay companies. She regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies.
