header-logo header-logo

20 February 2025
Issue: 8106 / Categories: Legal News , Technology , Artificial intelligence , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Lawyers want firms to move faster on legal tech

Impatience is growing among lawyers as firms drag their feet on tech investment, a report by LexisNexis Legal & Professional has found.

Nearly half (47%) of private practice lawyers surveyed say their firm is slow or very slow at adopting new technology, according to the report, 'Innovating the client experience', published this week. Only 18% say their firm is fast or very fast.

Some 58% say their firm is behind on using data and analytics.

More than one third—35%—admit their firm is too slow at delivering legal work in general.

Meanwhile, 57% expect artificial intelligence (AI) to transform legal research and document review within three years—but will their firms keep up?

As Laura Hodgson, the AI Lead at Linklaters, says in the report: ‘There needs to be a mind shift to recognise that law firms have more to offer than the knowledge in each lawyer’s head: institutional data and new workflows can transform the value provided to clients.’

Sluggish systems are another bugbear: for example, more than half (52%) of private practice lawyers rated their firm as adequate, slow or very slow at conducting legal research. Some 45% said the same when asked about drafting and reviewing legal documents.

These private practice frustrations are reflected by the wish list of corporate counsel.

The survey, of more than 800 legal professionals, asked in-house legal counsel what they need from their external lawyers. Nearly three-quarters (74%) said they need their external team to be cost-effective, 67% need them to be responsive and agile, and 44% need them to offer specialist legal expertise—all of which require an investment in new technology and innovation.

Stuart Greenhill, senior director of segments at LexisNexis UK, said: ‘To remain competitive, firms will need to deliver a superior, data-driven legal service, at the same cost or lower, and at pace—and to keep clients informed of any legal or regulatory developments.

‘Achieving all this without the help of modern technology will be difficult. To secure client relationships, firms will need to invest in a streamlined, data-driven client offering.’

A potential loss of talent is another downside for firms that lag behind on tech. One quarter of all lawyers responding said it would negatively impact their careers if their firm failed to embrace AI, and 11% would consider leaving. At larger firms, these figures were higher—36% and 19%, respectively.

View the full report here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll