AI Finding Favor in Legal Industry, but Adoption Lags
A study by e-discovery services company Consilio found that 93 percent of legal professionals saw value in AI, but some significant barriers to adoption remain.
March 01, 2018 at 10:00 AM
4 minute read
A recent study by e-discovery services group Consilio polled 105 legal and technology professionals at last month's Legalweek New York conference, and found that 93 percent believe artificial intelligence (AI) is likely to either help or create more opportunities within the legal industry. Adoption rates, however, tell a different story.
Time management and cost reductions were the two largest perceived benefits of AI adoption identified by the survey. Thirty-five percent of those polled said AI could enable lawyers to spend more time on strategy, while 28 percent saw potential for cost efficiencies.
Amy Hinzmann, managing director at Consilio, hears a lot of questions from clients about AI. “In the context of e-discovery, people are asking about cost. They want to know how TAR 1.0 and 2.0 differ, how we're implementing continuous active learning into our processes, and when and why it makes sense for them,” she said.
Outside of e-discovery, Hinzmann sees the legal community engaging in a broader conversation about how the technology can and should shape operational practices. “That's more talking about how do we, as legal and compliance professionals, understand and embrace this movement to incorporate AI to improve processes, to create new processes and just become more efficient. A lot of our business partners are doing that already.”
Consilio's data seems to show that attorneys see the potential in AI. Sixty-two percent of survey respondents said AI was already affecting their day-to-day work; 95 percent said they expected it to impact their work within the next five years.
While attorneys may see great potential in AI, adoption rates for AI haven't come quite as quickly. A Thomson Reuters survey of corporate legal departments published last year found that, although 67 percent of those polled were open to new technology adoption, 50 percent were not interested in purchasing AI or AI-based tools.
Hinzmann noted that attorneys often are wary of potential issues of defensibility in new technologies like AI. “Lawyers don't like to be on the bleeding edge of anything. One of my clients who spoke with me on a panel put it best by saying, 'Lawyers are motivated by fear, and that's because the law is unforgiving.'”
Because a lot of the formal rules and laws around data practices are still being established, attorneys tend to be wary of becoming the law, rather than practicing it. “No one wants to be the case that everyone's talking about the next year at Legaltech,” Hinzmann said.
Attorneys surveyed for Consilio's study flagged some other potential downsides to AI's likely impact on the legal community. Twenty-nine percent believe that AI is likely to result in a loss of jobs within the legal community, while 28 percent see AI limiting opportunities for junior associates.
To help quell those fears, Hinzmann said that testing through sample sets and proving the value for attorneys can help show both the safety and practicality of AI across various legal applications.
“You can make an investment in that process by running parallel processes,” Hinzmann suggested, noting that running the same document set through a traditional and technology-assisted review (TAR) simultaneously can help demonstrate both the efficiency and defensibility of AI-based methods.
Hinzmann finds that helping attorneys feel comfortable with practical AI adoption may be as simple as setting some guardrails and expert systems in place to help ensure that practices don't veer off into the great, indefensible unknown. “As we implement these processes, let's implement some controls around it,” she suggested.
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
- 1Law Firm Accused of Barratry for Allegedly Soliciting Crash Victims
- 2Carlton Fields Downsizes in Move to New Atlanta Office
- 3Trump's Selection of Zeldin to Head EPA Draws Surprise, Little Hope of Avoiding Deregulation
- 4Against the Odds: Voters Elect Woody Clermont to the Broward Judicial Bench
- 5US Supreme Court Justices Pass on Landlord Challenge to NY Rent Stabilization
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