A
new
study
from
LexisNexis
confirms
what
many
have
suspected:
in-house
counsel
are
increasingly
relying
on
GenAI
tools
and
large
language
models
(LLMs).
And
that
use?
It’s
probably
the
lowest
it
will
ever
be.
That’s
something
outside
counsel
need
to
be
thinking
long
and
hard
about.
The
study,
titled
The
Total
Economic
Impact™
of
Lexis+
AI
for
Corporate
Legal
Departments,
was
conducted
for
LexisNexis
by
Forrester
Consulting.
Forrester
interviewed
four
decision-makers
who
had
used
LexisNexis
GenAI
tools
and
then
constructed
a
composite
organization
to
illustrate
the
potential
savings
in-house
legal
teams
might
achieve
with
the
tools,
which
I
guess
it
did.
What
Caught
My
Eye
But
that’s
not
what
caught
my
eye.
Here
is
what
did:
·
Organizations
are
still
struggling
to
identify
GenAI
solutions
that
meet
both
their
business
objectives
and
security/governance
requirements.
·
Even
so,
the
study
suggests
that
in-house
teams
could
reduce
by
about
13%
the
amount
of
work
referred
to
outside
counsel
by
using
GenAI.
·
GenAI
could
also
cut
by
25%
the
time
spent
by
in-house
legal
annually
on
routine
business
inquiries.
·
In-house
paralegal
time
could
be
reduced
by
as
much
as
50%
through
AI
tools.
·
By
automating
routine
work,
legal
staff
could
better
meet
day-to-day
demands
and
perhaps
improve
their
work-life
balance.
Some
of
the
participant
comments
are
equally
enlightening.
One
likened
the
GenAI
tools
to
having
a
virtual
associate
or
paralegal
right
at
their
side.
Another
said
they
turn
to
GenAI
when
time
is
of
the
essence.
Yet
another
pointed
out
that
work
sent
to
outside
counsel
is
inherently
more
expensive,
not
just
because
of
the
hourly
rate,
but
because
outside
counsel
often
put
more
time
into
a
matter,
and
it
drags
on
and
on.
One
participant
bluntly
observed
that
outside
counsel
are
incentivized
to
bill
time,
not
necessarily
to
finish
work
quickly
and
well.
GenAI,
they
also
said,
was
especially
helpful
in
reducing
time
spent
on
lower-value
tasks
that
don’t
require
high-level
attorney
expertise.
As
one
put
it,
GenAI
helped
them
meet
internal
client
turnaround
expectations
and
expand
their
capacity
to
take
on
more
work.
The
parallels
between
the
study
findings
and
what
the
three
in-house
counsel
on
the
LegalGeek
panel
on
which
I
previously
reported
shared
are
striking.
Both
groups
highlighted
the
internal
hurdles
they
face
in
expanding
AI
use
in
their
departments.
Both
noted
that
a
significant
objective
in
their
use
of
AI
was
to
reduce
spending
on
outside
counsel.
Both
emphasized
how
GenAI
tools
help
reduce
time
spent
responding
to
routine
and
often
repetitive
questions
from
the
business.
And
both
voiced
a
familiar
skepticism:
that
outside
counsel
don’t
always
have
their
best
interests
at
heart
when
working
on
and
billing
for
the
matters
referred
to
them.
So,
What’s
the
So
What?
Here’s
why
this
matters.
First,
the
lingering
concerns
in-house
counsel
have
about
security
actually
point
to
more,
not
less
adoption
ahead.
GenAI
vendors
aren’t
dumb.
They
know
this
is
a
pain
point
and
are
continuing
to
address
the
issue
to
increase
usage.
Everyone
in
the
study
and
on
the
panel
want
to
do
just
that.
Second,
in-house
lawyers
aren’t
dumb
either.
They
see
clearly
that
GenAI
can
help
reduce
outside
counsel
spend
and
as
the
tools
improve
and
get
more
secure,
that
trend
will
only
accelerate.
As
the
Panel
noted,
most
in-house
teams
want
to
refer
matters
to
outside
counsel
only
when
they
lack
the
needed
expertise
or
when
faced
with
litigation
matters.
(The
study
participants
noted,
by
the
way,
that
GenAI
helped
them
reduce
time
spent
by
outside
counsel
on
litigation
matters,
as
well.)
And
by
freeing
up
time
spent
on
routine
work,
in-house
lawyers
can
not
only
get
more
done
they
can
handle
matters
they
used
to
outsource
simply
because
they
didn’t
have
the
time.
I’m
not
sure
about
a
couple
of
study
findings.
Somehow,
I
doubt
that
freeing
up
time
will
result
in
in-house
legal
teams
achieving
a
greater
work
life
balance
because
they
can
get
their
work
done
sooner.
Typically,
the
workload
always
seems
to
somehow
expand
to
fill
whatever
time
is
available.
Other
tech
innovations
certainly
didn’t
provide
more
leisure
time;
they
only
increased
the
amount
of
work
expected
and
demanded.
And
as
for
the
50%
reduction
in
paralegal
time?
That
sounds
like
fewer
paralegals.
What
Is
Certain
But
one
thing
is
certain:
the
relationship
between
in-house
and
outside
counsel
is
changing.
Yes,
as
I’ve
noted
before,
technology
will
likely
create
more
legal
work,
not
less,
at
least
for
the
short
term.
But
the
division
of
labor
between
inside
and
outside
legal
teams
is
shifting.
Outside
counsel
need
to
understand
that
change
and
define
how
and
where
they
can
bring
value
to
in-house
legal
perhaps
in
new
and
different
ways.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.