A Rising AI Tide Across Industries May Lift Legal's Boat
AI use is on the rise across industries, which could be helping to drive further adoption within the legal industry. However, legal's approach to incorporating AI into their workflows may be different than other departments within an organization.
October 22, 2019 at 05:59 AM
3 minute read
AI use is spiking across industries, according to a recent survey, which is potentially very good news for anyone in legal still stuck manually reading through old cases.
The results of RELX's 2019 Emerging Tech Executive Report released last week show that out of the 1,000 senior executives surveyed from industries such as health care, insurance, government and banking, 72% indicated that they were using AI in their business practices, a noticeable improvement over the 48% that reported the same in 2018.
Michael Lamb, group chief privacy officer at RELX, expects that a rising tide will continue to raise all boats—including legal.
"It's become clear that legal departments have to become as involved with legal technology that uses AI as their business counterparts have become in other industries," Lamb said.
The survey results would tend to bear him out. Per the report, the number of legal industry respondents currently utilizing AI in their business is at 65%—up 54% from last year's survey.
Furthermore, 92% of legal executive respondents said that emerging technologies were helping their business stay more competitive, which could go a long way towards explaining some of the drive pushing AI into the industry at large.
Lamb thinks that legal industry players not using AI could find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in terms of insights and the speed at which a given job or task can be accomplished.
AI, for example, can help detect jurisdictional trends or shave a few bodies off of a 50-person team that has manually been assigned to review boxes upon boxes of contracts.
"You get a best result and you get it much faster and more efficiently," Lamb said.
However, legal doesn't necessarily approach AI adoption the same way that other departments within an organization might.
For example, whereas 56% of businesses surveyed have increased their data scientist and technology head count and another 54% created new roles focused on emerging technologies, legal is more likely to engage the services of outside providers.
"I think the outside services like Lexis Nexis have the resources to put a greater emphasis on a legal department need and improve what they are delivering," Lamb said. "Law departments have to run in budget so if they can put that burden on an outside service they get the benefit of it."
But just because employees in the legal industry may be relying on outside providers doesn't mean that they can get away with a general lack of knowledge on AI. The RELX report showed that 71% of legal executives surveyed indicated that their company offers training in AI tech.
Still, why bother with instruction if legal farms out most of it's AI-related work to providers?
Lamb pointed out that lawyers traffic in context and interpretation.
"You don't need to write the software as a lawyer, but you need to understand the results you're getting," Lamb said.
|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
- 1Appellate Div. Follows Fed Reasoning on Recusal for Legislator-Turned-Judge
- 2SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
- 3Judiciary Law §487 in 2024
- 4Polsinelli's Revenue and Profits Surge Amid Partner De-Equitizations, Retirements
- 5Environmental Fines: Texas Secures Over $100M From Petrochemical Processor TPC Group
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