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

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

NLJ Career Profile: Maryam Syed KC, Church Court Chambers

From childhood dreams of the Bar to some of the country's most challenging cases, Maryam Syed KC explains why she has never stopped standing up for others

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft—Richard Breavington, Rachel Ford & Daniel Guilfoyle

DAC Beachcroft significantly expands Cyber team, hiring three Cyber partners

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson—Professor Clive Kay

Browne Jacobson appoints senior healthcare leader Professor Clive Kay as strategic adviser

NEWS
As family justice moves further away from the courtroom, collaborative law is emerging as an increasingly important route to resolving separation disputes
A busy period for employment law is producing important lessons for employers, employees and tribunals alike
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll