Trust me I'm a legal AI: Can the legal profession close the 'trust gap' with Gen AI?
Discover how law firms can take some basic steps to build their lawyers' and their clients' confidence in Legal AI tools
August 01, 2024 at 06:00 AM
5 minute read
Generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) technology trained for the legal profession appears certain to transform the way that lawyers work. Before that can happen, lawyers and their clients need to develop trust in legal AI in the same way they trust an experienced associate.
Nearly 4 in 10 senior lawyers (37%) say their firms already use AI tools, but just 25% state they trust the technology to handle legal work, according to the LexisNexis Investing in Legal Innovation Survey.
To close this trust gap, law firms need to take some basic steps to build their lawyers' and their clients' confidence in Legal AI tools — once rolled out, this technology can create amazing new operational efficiencies and open new revenue streams. The first step is to understand what drives trust with the introduction of new technologies.
Testing new tools can help boost trust in Legal AI
Views on how quickly to embrace Legal AI are still very much in flux, with the vast majority of lawyers trying to carefully gauge how to proceed. Our survey found that only one in 10 lawyers have strong opinions on AI adoption either way. This caution has led some firms to take a wait-and-see approach.
But many industry leaders are issuing a warning: Innovation is advancing so rapidly that law firms better find a way to not be left behind. Greg Lambert, chief knowledge services officer at Jackson Walker, likens the current environment to a boat that is leaving the dock — the longer a firm waits to get on board, the further it will be out to sea and the harder it will be to catch it before it disappears.
How do firms start to close the trust gap so they can jump on board the AI boat? According to the recent Gen AI report, Gen AI in Law: A Guide to Building Trust , simply testing out new Gen AI tools can help to drive confidence among lawyers.
"We are knee-deep in testing Gen AI tools," said Peter Geovanes, chief innovation and AI officer at McGuire Woods. "My favorite catchphrase that we tell our clients is we're going to do this with 'REM', which stands for a responsible, ethical and measured approach. We have success criteria, we have use cases, we're engaging with the attorneys, and we're collecting metrics and feedback. We're in a trust but verify mode — that's how we build trust with the tool."
Building trust must be central theme
One certain explanation for the trust gap, discussed in the Gen AI report, is the small number of cases in which Gen AI technology has produced inaccurate responses to queries and the lawyers involved failed to check the work output before using the AI-generated content in a court filing.
"There have been plenty of reports in the news and elsewhere as to the various ways that lawyers and law firms have gotten themselves into trouble by using generative AI without completely understanding the risks associated with it," said Neil Posner, a principal at Chicago law firm Much Shelist. He notes that these headlines have also created significant skepticism among judges, who in some cases are now requiring lawyers to certify either that they are not using Gen AI or they have read everything that they have cited.
It seems that the key to building trust in the technology is to increase the exposure of legal practitioners and courts to Gen AI tools. Our innovation survey uncovered that senior lawyers were more than twice as likely to trust Gen AI for legal work if they had already used it in a non-professional capacity.
"The change management process is aided mostly by getting hands-on experience with using the tools," said Jeff Pfeifer, chief product officer at LexisNexis. "The more a lawyer has access to the tools, the more confident and comfortable they get interacting with the underlying capabilities."
Pfeifer notes, however, that "there is a genuine risk in using tools that are not tuned and tailored for the legal market use cases."
Law firms appear to be confident the trust gap will close in time and are anticipating steadily rising adoption of Legal AI tools. Nine in 10 lawyers (90%) responding to our survey said their firms will increase Gen AI investment over the next five years.
We interviewed a variety of AI leaders from the legal profession to explore how law firms and corporations that embrace Legal AI are building trust in the use of this new technology. In addition to the section of the report we unpacked today, which addresses the key factors that drive trust, other sections of the report include:
- Addressing concerns about accuracy and confidentiality;
- The steps to building trust; and
- Rethinking workflow, skills and culture.
Read the full report now: Gen AI in Law: A Guide to Building Trust.
To read more insights and thought leadership from Lexis+ Ai, click here.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRemembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
5 minute read'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readElite Boutiques Competing More With Big Law Bonuses, With Several Going Above Market
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 2Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 3Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 4Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
- 5In Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250