Corporate Law Still Not Ready for AI, Survey Says
A survey by HBR Consulting highlights the ongoing difficulties legal departments have with finding a place for artificial intelligence in-house.
February 09, 2018 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
Despite all the potential artificial intelligence (AI) has to transform corporate legal services, many legal teams are still not ready to use the technology, according to HBR Consulting's “Law Department Artificial Intelligence Survey Report,” a survey of 35 legal departments, most of whom are in Fortune 500 organizations.
The survey found that only a small minority of legal departments were currently moving to leverage AI in their operations. Only six percent, for example, either considered AI a “high priority” in their department or have deployed AI in-house in some fashion.
To be sure, a significant amount of legal departments were expressing strong interest in the technology, with 31 percent calling it a “medium priority” for their department and 26 percent noting they needed to deploy AI in the near future.
But an almost equal amount had little to no interest in the technology. While 43 percent said it was “not a priority” or a “low priority” for their department, 31 percent said the technology is not even on their radar.
Though HBR's survey only included a relatively small sample size, its findings echoed that of the Thomson Reuters' “Ready or Not: Artificial Intelligence and Corporate Legal Departments” October 2017 report, which surveyed 207 legal departments.
That report found a strong lack of interest in AI among legal departments because many are not yet prepared for the technology. What's more, a majority believed that it would take a decade or more for AI to become mainstream.
Bobbi Basile, managing director at HBR Consulting, noted that that the low deployment of AI can be “reflective of the buying cycle that law departments are subject to,” adding that many haven't yet put aside the funds needed to purchase and deploy the technology.
But she also said that many legal departments were likely simply not ready for AI either. The technology requires extensive training before it can be deployed, and such training can be quite technical in nature.
Legal departments, however, “typically do not have data scientists or folks who are typically designated for that role,” she said, adding, “The fact that it requires that level of guidance associated with it is likely a barrier as well.”
Similar to Thomson Reuters' report, the HBR survey also found that most legal departments see AI as a tool that enables efficiencies rather than replaces staff. Around two-thirds believed that AI could help them increase productivity without increasing staff, while 66 percent said AI can improve legal department operations. Only 26 percent believed AI could decrease their reliance on outside counsel.
More legal departments also said the most opportunity to leverage AI was in contract analytics, (40 percent) than in e-discovery (17 percent) or predictive analytics (14 percent), despite AI being established in all three fields.
Basile explained legal departments are generally unfamiliar with AI's use outside of contract analytics. She noted that many “do not take control over e-discovery; for example, they abdicate responsibility to their outside counsel” and are therefore unaware of AI's role in the technology.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 2A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 3Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
- 4Navigating Twitter's 'Rocky Deal Process' Helped Drive Simpson Thacher's Tech and Telecom Practice
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
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