A recent survey conducted by New Jersey law firm Lowenstein Sandler in collaboration with the Association of Corporate Counsel reveals a pronounced hesitancy among in-house legal professionals to embrace artificial intelligence (AI) in their practice. Despite recognizing the potential productivity boosts AI can offer, a significant portion of attorneys lacks confidence in their understanding of the technology.
Navigating the AI Landscape
The survey, which garnered responses from 165 legal professionals within the U.S., disclosed that a substantial 64% have not employed AI for legal tasks. This reluctance exists even though 62% acknowledged AI’s potential to augment productivity. A deeper dive into the data reveals an intriguing paradox – legal professionals have enough AI knowledge to be aware of their own limitations.
A mere 12% of respondents claimed limited or no awareness of generative AI’s capabilities, with a significant 75% professing at least a moderate level of knowledge. However, confidence in this understanding is low, with 43% expressing little to no confidence.
Training Deficit
The deficit in training emerges as a significant barrier. A scant 25% indicated they had received AI-related training, and a majority have no plans to rectify this training gap. This deficiency in education and understanding stands as a formidable obstacle to AI integration within legal practices.
Mary Hildebrand, a distinguished member of Lowenstein Sandler and the report’s author, forecasts increased organizational pressure on attorneys to integrate AI, as more data underscoring the benefits of AI becomes available. She stresses that “As improved data around the use of generative AI is released, firms and businesses will be more inclined to leverage these programs for their operations in the coming years.”
Current AI Application and Perceived Risks
Of those who have ventured into the AI terrain, the primary applications include general research (33%), document generation (32%), and summarization tasks (11%). Respondents highlighted the benefits of increased productivity (43%), expedited work completion (39%), and content and idea generation (23%).
However, reservations persist. Concerns about accuracy (44%), privacy and data breaches (32%), and the lack of human contextual understanding (10%) top the list of perceived risks. This apprehension isn’t confined to legal departments; the survey unveils a broader, organizational caution in adopting AI.
Moving Forward
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the integration of AI technologies could delineate the divide between entities that adapt and those that lag behind. Hildebrand underscores the pivotal role of “prudent policies and thorough training” to navigate the complex AI ecosystem effectively.
Legal professionals’ tentative engagement with AI reflects a broader narrative of opportunity juxtaposed with the challenges of a rapidly evolving technological landscape. The balance between leveraging AI’s potent capabilities and mitigating its inherent risks will likely define the future trajectory of legal practices and beyond.
