AI vs. Legal AI, What's The Difference?
Open-web AI tools amazed users while tech-savvy lawyers began dreaming of uses for this new technology like drafting client emails to summarizing lengthy documents for a brief. It didn't take long before lawyers learned that these open-web AI tools were not suited for the legal environment.
April 23, 2024 at 12:50 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It may seem like a distant memory by now, but it was November 2022 when most legal professionals were first introduced to the world of Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) technology with the commercial debut of ChatGPT. That tool was soon followed by launches of Gen AI offerings from Google, Microsoft and other major tech companies.
These open-web AI tools amazed users with their ability to seemingly create new content out of thin air in response to simple search queries, and tech-savvy lawyers began dreaming of use cases for this new technology, from drafting client emails to summarizing lengthy documents for a brief that is due the next morning. It didn't take long, though, before lawyers learned that these open-web AI tools were not designed for the legal environment. ChatGPT was great for planning a vacation itinerary in Hawaii, not so great with surfacing court decisions to support a legal argument.
Put simply, the legal profession cannot rely on open-web AI tools to perform legal work. Legal AI — Gen AI tools trained for the legal profession — are the only viable option for legal professions who want to take advantage of the AI revolution.
"General AI models just don't work for law firms, they need very specific and legally trained models," said Sean Fitzpatrick, CEO of LexisNexis North America, UK and Ireland, in comments during a recent Wall Street Journal event for law firm managing partners. "There's a lot of hype out there about Gen AI in the legal space, but there's a reality within that hype that there are some real products, they really work and they're transformational."
Mr. Fitzpatrick noted that there are some important reasons why law firms need to seek out a Legal AI solution for their lawyers. For example, lawyers need authoritative and up-to-date legal resources at their fingertips to practice effectively, which open-web AI tools such as ChatGPT are unable to access in the training of their models. Also, Legal AI solutions are shaped and informed by a combination of technologists and "an army" of lawyers who are subject matter experts in their fields, not just by machines ingesting content and engineers writing code.
The available data suggests that leading-edge law firms are embracing Legal AI at a rate that far surpasses previous tech innovations.
The LexisNexis 2024 Investing in Legal Innovation Survey: The Rise of Gen AI at Top Firms & Corporations, surveyed managing partners and other senior leaders at large law firms, as well as executives in corporate legal departments at Fortune 1000 companies, to better understand the business impact of Gen AI technology on the legal industry. Our survey found that 53% of Am Law 200 firms have already purchased Legal AI tools and that 45% of Am Law 200 firms are currently using Gen AI solutions for legal work.
"We're hearing from law firms that they are actually using Legal AI products right now," said Mr. Fitzpatrick. "This is real and it's moving very quickly. We just haven't seen these kinds of adoption rates in the legal technology industry in the past, so this is quite revolutionary."
He added that corporate legal departments are following a similar track of Gen AI adoption — in fact, our survey found that corporate leaders reported the highest degree of current Gen AI usage — and these potential law firm clients are seeking outside counsel to provide them with trusted guidance on their Gen AI journey.
"They are facing issues such as regulatory matters, data security and privacy concerns," said Mr. Fitzpatrick. "They need help and there is a lot of opportunity for law firms who are positioned to help them. AI is no longer a future consideration, it is a present necessity for law firms."
This article was based on one of the panel discussions at the Wall Street Journal event, "What Every Managing Partner & C-Suite Leader Needs to Know About Legal AI," which took place on January 31st in New York City. Watch the entire session, The New Legal Frontier, for more insights from industry leaders.
To read more insights and thought leadership from Lexis+ Ai, click here.
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 AllEnergy Lawyers Working in Texas Expect Strong Demand to Continue in 2025 Across Energy Sector
6 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readElite Boutiques Competing More With Big Law Bonuses, With Several Going Above Market
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Houston Judge Exonerated on Appeal, Public Reprimand Vacated
- 2Bar Report - Dec. 30
- 3Employment Law Developments to Expect From the Second Trump Administration
- 4How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'It’s Imperative That You Never Stop Learning,' Says Ian Ribald of Ballard Spahr
- 5People in the News—Dec. 30, 2024—Pond Lehocky, Buchanan Ingersoll
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