ABA Survey: Only 10 Percent of Law Firms Are Currently Using AI
The American Bar Association's report found AI usage is greater among large firms, while smaller firms saw uncertainty over what benefits AI offers law.
January 11, 2019 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
The use of AI in legal may not be as widespread as one would think: Only 10 percent of lawyers used artificial intelligence-based tech tools for their legal work in 2018.
The findings come from a survey conducted in the ABA's “2018 Legal Technology Survey Report,” with 900 respondents from across the nation and at firms of various sizes.
While only 10 percent of respondents reported they used artificial intelligence-based technology tools, respondents at large law firms with over 100 attorneys were most likely to use the technology (26 percent). Specifically, 35 percent of respondents from large firms with 500-plus attorneys reported they used AI, compared to 23 percent of respondents at firms with 100-499 attorneys.
Alternatively, respondents at firms with a 50-99 headcount were the least likely to use AI (three percent), followed by four percent of respondents at firms that employ two to nine attorneys. Eight percent of solo practitioner respondents said they used AI, along with nearly 12 percent of attorneys at firms with 10-49 attorneys.
Nearly half, 45 percent, of respondents said they weren't interested in purchasing AI-based tech tools. While only three percent of respondents at 100-plus lawyer firms responded as such, over half of solo lawyers (65 percent) and lawyers at boutiques (60 percent) said they had no interest in purchasing an AI-based software.
Meanwhile, only eight percent of respondents said they were “seriously considering” purchasing AI software tools. Respondents at firms with 100 or more attorneys were most likely (16 percent) to report they were considering an AI purchase, according to the report.
The lack of interest in AI among smaller firms may stem from uncertainty about artificial intelligence's possible benefits.
For instance, 41 percent of all respondents said they didn't know the most important benefit AI-based tech tools could provide their firms. Only 27 percent of respondents from firms with 100-plus attorneys shared that sentiment, while at least 40 percent of firms with less than 49 attorneys also said they didn't know any AI benefits.
For those that saw a benefit in AI, saving time/increasing efficiency was the highest-rated advantage that AI-powered software could provide, according to the report.
In addition, document review and document management was cited by nearly one-fourth of respondents as an important benefit (25 percent), followed by reducing costs and predicting outcomes/reducing risk.
At 44 percent, cost and accuracy of technology were the top two concerns for implementing AI, followed closely by technology's reliability (42 percent), according to the ABA.
Interestingly, 61 percent of respondents at Big Law (firms that employ 500-plus attorneys) cited accuracy of technology as their biggest concern about AI, the only response to receive a consensus of over 50 percent.
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