Using AI in Legal Practice

Efficiency Gains: AI’s Growing Role in Law Firms

Law is a knowledge-intensive field with many repetitive, time-consuming processes. AI technologies, especially those based on natural language processing and machine learning, are proving adept at handling some of these tasks. A recent survey found that 82% of lawyers are now using or planning to use AI in their practice, a huge jump from 39% a year earlier . This surge in adoption reflects a recognition that AI can shoulder the heavy lifting of data-heavy work, freeing up lawyers for more strategic, high-value activities.

One of the primary efficiency gains from AI is in document review and e-discovery. AI-powered software can sift through millions of documents for relevant information in minutes – flagging inconsistencies, finding key precedents, and identifying patterns far faster than a human could . For instance, machine learning models can classify documents as privileged or relevant to a case, dramatically reducing the hours junior lawyers or paralegals spend on initial review. Similarly, in due diligence for mergers or large transactions, AI can accelerate contract analysis, spotting clauses or risks that need attention. U.K. law firms have taken note: global firm Allen & Overy made headlines by deploying an AI assistant named Harvey (built on GPT-4) to help 3,500 lawyers across 43 offices with document drafting and research tasks . Another top firm, Macfarlanes, piloted and then partnered with the same AI platform to give over 600 of its lawyers AI support for research, summarizing documents, and even first-draft writing of emails and memos  . These real-world implementations show that AI is no longer theoretical in legal practice – it’s here, improving turnaround times and potentially client service.

Beyond document review, AI aids legal research. Traditional legal research on case law and statutes can be laborious; AI-driven tools (like intelligent search engines or chatbots fine-tuned on legal databases) can retrieve information or even answer legal queries conversationally. While such tools must be used carefully (more on that later), they can act as a starting point for attorneys to explore relevant authorities quickly. Automation of routine drafting is another efficiency booster. For example, AI can generate first drafts of standard contracts, letters, or court forms by pulling in the necessary details – lawyers then just refine the output. This is analogous to having a very fast junior assistant. Indeed, some in-house legal departments use AI to draft NDAs or employment agreements using templates and AI suggestions, cutting down the back-and-forth with outside counsel.

These efficiency gains are especially valuable given the pressures on legal teams to do more with less. Law firm clients demand quicker turnarounds and cost-effective services. In corporate legal departments, there is pressure to streamline operations. AI is helping reduce workloads: tasks that took hours can sometimes be done in seconds or minutes , and AI can work 24/7 without fatigue. As one analysis noted, AI in law allows lawyers to “focus on more strategic work” while routine checks are handled by the machine . In other words, AI is becoming the tireless junior associate that never sleeps. Importantly, leading legal professionals emphasize that AI is a supplement, not a substitute for human expertise  . It excels at data crunching and pattern recognition but lacks the nuanced judgment, creativity, and ethical reasoning that experienced lawyers provide. We will discuss these limitations later on – but in terms of sheer efficiency, the case for AI in legal practice is strong and already being realized.

Data Silos, Privacy, and Security: Navigating AI in a Regulated Field

While the benefits of AI are clear, law firms face unique challenges around data handling and privacy that make the adoption of AI a careful endeavor. Legal practices manage highly confidential client data – from personal information to trade secrets – and are bound by strict professional secrecy and data protection laws. Sending such data to external AI systems (for example, a cloud-based service) raises red flags. In a regulated sector, compliance and privacy must be top priorities when implementing AI .

One issue is that many law firms historically operate with data silos and legacy IT systems. Different departments or offices might use separate document management systems, and older software might not integrate well with new AI tools  . For AI to be effective, it often needs access to large, well-organized datasets – for a law firm, that could mean all past case files, contracts, or emails relevant to a matter. Breaking down these silos is not just a technical challenge but also a cultural one. Forward-thinking firms are investing in modern knowledge management platforms that unify data and are AI-friendly, enabling, for example, a question-answering AI to pull information from the firm’s entire body of past work (while respecting access permissions). Integrating AI with practice management and document systems is a hurdle but solutions are emerging – some AI vendors offer connectors to popular legal software, or firms build custom integrations. Overcoming interoperability issues can greatly improve AI’s utility and reduce the inefficiencies of patchwork systems  .

Privacy and security concerns around AI are even more crucial. Lawyers must ensure client data isn’t inadvertently exposed. One survey noted that 49% of lawyers cited “leaking of confidential client data” as their biggest concern about using AI tools for research or guidance . This concern is not unfounded: a naïve use of a public AI service (like a free chatbot) could inadvertently upload sensitive text to an external server outside the firm’s control. To mitigate this, many firms are developing clear policies on AI usage – e.g., banning the input of any client-identifying information into unsanctioned AI tools. Some have entirely prohibited free cloud AI tools in favor of approved, secure alternatives. Others route AI queries through self-hosted models or vendors with robust privacy guarantees (e.g., providers that allow hosting AI behind the firm’s firewall or using encryption to ensure no data is retained). The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in the UK has also advised caution: any AI used must comply with professional conduct rules, including confidentiality and data protection regulations . In practice, this means a preference for UK or EU-based AI services that align with GDPR and keeping a human lawyer in the loop to vet AI outputs for accuracy and appropriateness .

Another aspect of data management is addressing the “black box” nature of AI. Advanced AI models, especially deep learning ones, can be opaque in their decision-making. For legal professionals, not understanding how an AI arrived at an answer is problematic. If an AI tool summarizes a case or suggests a legal strategy, the lawyer needs to verify those suggestions. There have been cautionary tales: in one U.S. incident, lawyers who relied on ChatGPT to generate case citations ended up submitting fictitious cases to the court, leading to sanctions when the deception (or mistake) came to light. A similar scenario unfolded in the UK – in 2025 the High Court in England & Wales rebuked solicitors and barristers for submitting AI-generated fake citations in legal arguments . In one case, a barrister included five nonexistent cases in a filing; in another, nearly 18 out of 45 cited authorities were bogus – potentially the product of unverified AI output  . These incidents prompted stern warnings from judges that relying on unvetted AI is unacceptable and can amount to professional misconduct . The takeaway for law firms is clear: AI should not be trusted blindly. Every AI-generated result must be checked against reliable sources by a human. Many firms now implement a rule: AI may assist in research or drafting, but attorneys must “trust but verify” – verify all case citations, factual statements, or contract clauses that an AI suggests, just as they would review a junior lawyer’s work.

To further guard against pitfalls, law firms are instituting training and oversight around AI use. Internal training sessions inform staff about issues like AI hallucinations (making up information) , data governance, and bias. Some firms have created AI committees or designated “AI champions” to evaluate new tools and monitor their appropriate use. Overall, managing data and privacy in the age of legal AI boils down to a mix of technology solutions (secure, integrated systems) and governance solutions (policies and training). By addressing these, firms can confidently exploit AI’s benefits without violating client trust or regulations.

Will AI Replace Lawyers? Efficiency vs. the Human Touch

The prospect of AI “replacing” legal staff has been a topic of intense debate. It’s true that AI can perform many tasks that junior lawyers, paralegals, or support staff traditionally handle. For example, automated contract review might reduce the need for large teams of reviewers in litigation. Chatbots can handle routine client inquiries, potentially lessening some roles in client intake. Even tasks like drafting basic wills or leases can be automated to a degree. Legal AI startups and tools are emerging that target efficiency gains which might otherwise be achieved by hiring additional people. This raises a legitimate question: will AI lead to leaner law firms and job reductions?

In the short to medium term, the consensus is that AI will augment more than it replaces. Many law firms see it as an opportunity to reduce drudge work and improve productivity, rather than a way to cut headcount en masse. A survey by the Law Society of England and Wales highlighted a gap: 75% of the largest UK law firms are using AI, but only 30% of small firms are exploring it . The big firms adopting AI are not necessarily firing associates; instead, they’re aiming to handle more case volume or provide new services without a linear increase in staff. In other words, AI helps them “do more with the same number of people.” At smaller firms, there’s a risk of falling behind if they don’t leverage similar tools – but often these firms don’t have excess staff to cut anyway. In fact, AI can be an equalizer: a small law office can take on work that would have overwhelmed them before by using AI for first drafts or research, thereby competing with larger firms .

That said, certain support roles might evolve or diminish. For example, roles focused purely on document organization or basic legal research might shift towards roles focusing on supervising AI or handling more complex aspects the AI can’t do. We’re already seeing new types of roles emerge in law firms: “legal technologists” or “innovation managers” who sit at the intersection of IT and legal practice to implement AI and other tech. Some displaced tasks for junior lawyers (like spending hundreds of hours on discovery) could translate into those lawyers focusing on analytical and client-facing work sooner in their careers. There is a popular saying: “AI won’t replace lawyers, but lawyers who use AI will replace those who don’t.” The meaning is that human expertise remains critical, but being tech-savvy will be a competitive advantage. Indeed, many firms are encouraging their attorneys to become proficient in using AI tools to amplify their capabilities.

An area where AI clearly cannot replace humans is in courtroom advocacy, complex advisory work, and client relationships. As Pinsent Masons LLP noted in a thought leadership piece, AI lacks the nuanced reasoning, ethical judgment, and creative problem-solving that lawyers bring  . Crafting a legal strategy for a unique client situation, negotiating a deal, or calming a client’s anxieties – these are human skills. Clients hire lawyers not just for rote knowledge of law (which AI can store) but for judgment and counsel. Moreover, judges and juries respond to human storytelling and credibility, not machine-generated arguments. The human element in law – empathy, strategic thinking, duty of care – remains paramount  . AI can supply information or even a draft argument, but a qualified lawyer must decide how to use that information, what strategy to pursue, and take responsibility for the outcome.

Another important aspect is ethics and accountability. Lawyers are bound by professional ethics to supervise non-lawyers who work for them – increasingly, that principle is being extended to AI systems. The lawyer is ultimately accountable for errors in AI output used in legal work . This was underscored by the High Court’s message that firm leadership must ensure everyone understands their duties when using AI . In practical terms, law firms must treat AI as a tool that needs oversight just like a junior employee. This reality further indicates that AI will act as an assistant to lawyers, not an autonomous lawyer in itself.

In terms of staff replacement, there might be redistribution of roles rather than large-scale unemployment. For example, fewer contract lawyers might be needed for a document review project because AI took a first pass, but perhaps more project managers or reviewers who understand AI outputs are needed to supervise. Some routine administrative roles (like scheduling or basic communications) might be handled by AI assistants, allowing support staff to focus on higher-touch tasks. Over time, the composition of law firm teams could shift: imagine a future litigation team where an AI tool is listed as doing initial case law research, the associates do deeper analysis and fact development, and partners craft strategy. The total number of personnel might be slightly leaner, but those people will be doing more intellectually engaging work with AI doing the heavy lifting in the background.

‍