The legal industry has long been derided as averse to technological change, but the advance of generative artificial intelligence appears to be causing a changing of the tide, based on recent survey data from Bloomberg Law.
Bloomberg Law’s most recent State of Practice Survey asked 450 law firm and in-house practicing attorneys about their familiarity with and views on generative AI and how their organizations have responded to recent developments in the technology.
When attorneys were asked about generative AI in the spring survey, they exhibited an overarching lack of familiarity with the rapidly emerging technology and a high level of uncertainty about the legal industry’s practical uses for it. And although uncertainty still lingers, the new data from the summer version of the survey suggest that the profession is quickly moving toward a broader understanding—and, dare I say, embracing—of the technology.
Attorneys Dive Right In
Attorneys’ experience with generative AI has passed a tipping point since the spring, according to the data.
Sixty percent of attorneys reported this summer that they’ve used generative AI. That’s an almost complete flip from our spring survey, in which 63% of respondents said they had no experience using the technology. The ubiquity of the topic has likely played a role in the rise of attorneys reporting that they have at least tested the capabilities of generative AI, but the increase in those using it for work is rather interesting.
The percentage of attorneys who reported using generative AI for professional purposes has more than doubled in just three months—an impressive adoption rate for a profession that is known to be change-averse. And even though fewer than one-sixth of attorneys (15%) have now used generative AI for work, how these attorneys are implementing this technology into their workflows suggests that professional use is likely to keep growing.
For example, drafting communication—such as emails or letters to opposing counsel—and drafting legal documents were the two most common use cases reported by the lawyers that have already started implementing generative AI-powered tools into their workflows (65% and 53%, respectively). Both tasks often require a lot of time from attorneys, which means many may be enticed by generative AI’s ability to reduce that initial workload and create time for more complex tasks—assuming their organization allows the use.
In-House Legal Departments Swim Ahead
The surveys also asked attorneys to identify how their organization has responded to developments in generative AI, and the results show a dramatic spring-to-summer increase in activity, revealing two key insights: (1) the industry at large is getting better at how organizations communicate with their lawyers about the technology, and (2) in-house attorneys are seeing more drastic AI-related changes in their organizations than law firm attorneys are.
If you are having trouble viewing this interactive graphic, please enable third-party cookies on your browser. Terminal users, please click here.
From the first survey to the second, the number of attorneys who reported they are “not sure” of what their organization has done in response to developments in generative AI dropped by more than half. A drop this notable indicates that organizations have enhanced communication with their attorneys greatly in the last three months.
But the changes from spring to summer have not been equal when it comes to the responses from law firm vs. in-house attorneys.
In the spring, law firms and legal departments were on a similar playing field in terms of their responses to generative AI. Roughly the same percentages of law firm and in-house attorneys reported that their organizations had developed certain policies or restricted the use of generative AI. The largest gaps were in the categories of client advising, which appeared to be more popular in law firms (16% of attorneys) than legal departments (6%), and in internal discussions about AI, which were more common within legal departments (35%, compared to 29%).
Those internal discussions could have contributed to the rapid developments that in-house lawyers saw in this summer survey.
Both groups of attorneys reported much greater activity on the AI front in the summer, but the changes among in-house legal departments outpaced the changes in law firms in every response option across the board. For example, the development of internal policies on generative AI rose from 11% to 50% in corporate legal departments, compared to an increase from12% to 37% in law firms. And while advising clients on AI use was cited by 31% of attorneys in both groups in the summer, that 31% represented a five-fold increase for in-house counsel, but less than double for law firm lawyers.
Another look at the “not sure” totals reveals the speed of change—and increase in lawyer awareness—among in-house legal departments. In the spring survey, “not sure” was the most-selected option by in-house attorneys but in the summer, it was the least-selected. By contrast, “not sure” responses only dropped to fifth on the list of options for law firm respondents, leaving it as one of the top-five selected responses in the summer survey.
Such dramatic shifts could be a sign that corporate legal departments are just more innovative than law firms, at least in regard to generative AI. Or, alternatively, the difference in clientele necessitates a more rapid understanding of technological developments for in-house legal departments who are likely advising their corporations on the potential of widespread company adoption and utilization.
But although in-house attorneys are reporting more rapid changes, the survey data clearly show that both groups are moving in the right direction with generative AI.
Bloomberg Law subscribers can find related content on our Surveys, Reports, and Data Analysis page, Legal Operations page, and In Focus: Artificial Intelligence page.
If you’re reading this on the Bloomberg Terminal, please run BLAW OUT <GO> to access the hyperlinked content, or click here to view the web version of this article.
To contact the reporter on this story: Stephanie Pacheco at spacheco@bloombergindustry.com. To contact the editor: Robert Combs at rcombs@bloombergindustry.com.