Uninformed or Underwhelming? Most Lawyers Aren't Seeing AI's Value
A new ABA report found that accuracy was lawyers' top concern with AI. But legal tech observers and lawyers say it's understanding how the software works that leaves lawyers on the fence and some software on the shelf.
October 29, 2019 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
Artificial intelligence still hasn't made a true believer out of the bulk of the legal industry, according to the American Bar Association's recently released "Legal Technology Survey Report."
Of the 662 nationwide respondents that took part in the ABA's legal tech survey report, 51% said AI's accuracy was their top concern when implementing and leveraging AI-based technologies in their law firm. Reliability (48%) and cost to implement the technology (46%) followed closely behind.
Still, some law firms and law firm tech consultants and providers say the hesitancy to adopt artificial intelligence is mainly based on not fully understanding how the technology would enhance a lawyer's practice.
"There's this expectation AI is a box you open and you let it run and that is it," said HBR Consulting senior director Andrew Baker. But the reality is, "the technologies and data required and inputs is very foreign to legal organizations. We are not surprised there was a number of letdowns and expectations may have been uneven."
Baker added that, outside of financial data, law firms are "document rich and data poor," and because extracting data from those documents is difficult, it makes advanced analytics, automated documentation and other AI-powered legal services challenging.
"The data isn't accessible in the [classifications] of what you target and want to go after. Generally that's the current state of the market," he said.
While some law firms are struggling to collect and leverage valuable data, Baker noted smaller firms, which represented the majority of the survey's respondents, are at more of a disadvantage because they don't have the trove of data found in Big Law that benefits custom-made AI tools.
"I don't know if you have the volume of data that would require artificial intelligence to review for patterns," added Melissa Green of two-lawyer firm Linarducci Law and chair of the Delaware State Bar Association's small firms and solo practitioners section. "I can't say we've discussed it in our section."
However, some lawyers note AI is finding a receptive audience in various sized firms, when the lawyer's practice entails reviewing massive troves of electronic data.
"I can see significant instances in the discovery process where artificial intelligence can make searching for data easier," said Edward Zohn of Zohn & Zohn and chair of the New Jersey State Bar Association's solo and small-firm practitioners group. Still, "in general, I don't see it as a broad issue for small law firms."
From the vendor's prospective, concerns over AI seem misplaced. Chris Ricciuti, vice president of product management for legal and compliance at AI solutions provider Veritone Inc. noted that while AI-backed software doesn't prevent all mistakes, it can be more accurate than traditional, manual services.
He explained that "what's being missed is that there is no way to do anything 100% [accurate] with a human unless you want to hire a team of people and spend a lot of money and it's not scalable."
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
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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