Cost and Confusion: Legal Struggles to Understand, Deploy New Technologies
Bloomberg Law's Legal Operations & Technology survey found that just under a quarter of legal offices use AI. But a similar amount also can't say if they do or not.
May 17, 2019 at 07:30 AM
3 minute read
Tight budgets and lack of knowledge are hindering the legal industry's ability to leverage the latest technologies, according to Bloomberg Law's Legal Operations & Technology survey of 128 legal departments and 359 law firms. Most of those surveyed were either general counsel or law firm partners.
Only 23% of respondents said they are currently using AI or machine-learning tools, though an additional 24% were unsure whether such technology was being deployed in their law firm or legal department.
Molly Huie, team lead, Data Analytics and Surveys at Bloomberg Law, noted that the high rate of uncertainty around AI usage “reflects a knowledge gap—perhaps the tech they have is using AI.” She added that it is possible that AI usage, therefore, may be higher.
Among those using AI, almost half leveraged it in document review, while 41% specifically singled out e-discovery. What's more, around one-third, 31%, said they also used AI in legal research, while around 23% deployed it in litigation analytics and document drafting.
The situation was a little different within small legal departments. The most prevalent use for AI among in-house teams with 50 attorneys or less was both legal research and document review, while in legal departments with 51 attorneys or more, it was solely document review.
A majority of respondents in the survey noted that AI and legal technology would help their services become more efficient, which was a chief expectation among clients. But not all legal teams were able or eager to adopt new technologies. A majority of in-house respondents (55%), for example, said they don't have the budget to acquire or develop new technology.
Huie noted that this barrier presents “a catch-22,” because while legal departments are striving to become leaner operations, “without those new technologies, they aren't seeing those efficiencies and cost savings.”
Cost, however, wasn't the only barrier to tech adoption. Almost half of in-house respondents and a third of law firm respondents also noted they were too busy to learn new technologies. What's more, around 30% of both in-house and law firm respondents said they don't know enough about new technologies to buy them, and were comfortable using their current tools.
Of course, there are other ways for law firms and legal departments to drive efficiencies. Almost all respondents, 89%, noted having a legal ops function in their office. For around 45% of respondents, the scope of that function included records and vendor management, while for around 40%, it further included training and procurement. Slightly more than a third, 36%, also had their legal ops handle knowledge management within their offices.
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
© 2025 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
- 1Courts, Lawyers Press On With Business as SoCal Wildfires Rage
- 2Florida, a Political Epicenter, Is the Site of Brownstein Hyatt's 13th Office
- 3Law Firms Close Southern California Offices Amid Devastating Wildfires
- 4Lawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
- 5Holland & Knight Picks Up 8 Private Wealth Lawyers in Los Angeles
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