header-logo header-logo

AI moving faster than you think

13 July 2023
Issue: 8033 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Technology
printer mail-detail
Clients want their law firms to adopt artificial intelligence (AI) tools sooner than the latter think, a LexisNexis report has found

Almost all—95% of UK legal professionals surveyed—expect generative AI tools to have a noticeable impact on the practice of law.

But while 70% of in-house counsel say they will expect their firms to use AI, only 55% of firms think their clients will expect it. Digging deeper, almost half (49%) of in-house counsel expect their law firms to be using AI in the next 12 months. Of this 49%, one in ten expect their firms to be already using AI. Moreover, 82% of in-house counsel expect their law firms to make them aware of the use of generative AI tools.

Only 8% of clients do not want AI used on their work. In contrast, 24% of law firms believe their clients would not want them to use AI.

Asked to give examples where AI can be used, two-thirds of respondents said researching matters, 59% said briefing documents and 47% said document analysis. Lawyers in larger firms saw potential for due diligence (46%) and business development activity (40%).

Nearly a third of respondents at small law firms and mid-sized law firms are already exploring opportunities for AI in the workplace, compared to double that at large firms, 47% of in-house, 20% of the Bar and 14% of public sector lawyers.

However, lawyers are also aware of the risks—two-thirds of respondents have mixed feelings about AI.

‘When freely available AI tools don't have access to the relevant data, they have a tendency to make up the answers, or hallucinate,’ says Alison Rees-Blanchard, head of TMT legal guidance at LexisNexis.

‘This means any generated output must be checked thoroughly, as open-source generative AI does not always identify its source. However, when trained on a closed source and taught not to deviate, the results are exponentially more accurate.’

The report, ‘Generative AI and the future of the legal profession’, published this week, is based on surveys of 1,175 legal professionals in the UK in May and June.

Issue: 8033 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Technology
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll