Technology
adoption
in
the
legal
profession
has
always
been
a
mixed
bag.
Historically,
lawyers
have
been
receptive
to
some
innovations,
like
email,
word
processing,
fax
machines,
and
BlackBerrys,
but
have
been
slow
to
accept
others,
such
as
cloud
computing,
online
payments,
and
video
conferencing.
It’s
not
always
easy
to
predict
which
tools
will
be
viewed
favorably,
especially
since
factors
including
practice
areas,
geographic
location,
and
even
a
lawyer’s
age
can
significantly
impact
perceptions
about
technology.
That’s
why
I
find
practice-area-specific
technology
data
so
compelling,
especially
when
it
comes
to
artificial
intelligence
(AI)
adoption.
The
distinct
demands
of
each
practice
area
shape
the
rhythm
of
daily
work
in
a
firm.
A
transactional
lawyer’s
workflow
looks
nothing
like
that
of
a
litigator,
and
the
tools
each
relies
on
reflect
those
differences.
The
result
is
that
technology
adoption
varies
widely
across
practice
areas,
driven
by
the
unique
needs
and
pressures
of
the
work
itself.
The
variance
in
AI
adoption
across
practice
areas
is
a
particularly
interesting
dataset
to
analyze,
with
some
practice
areas
showing
much
higher
rates
of
AI
adoption
than
others.
Case
in
point:
I
recently
had
the
opportunity
to
review
and
write
about
survey
data
on
personal
injury
lawyers’
(PI)
perspectives
on
and
future
plans
for
AI
adoption
in
their
firms
in
the
8am
“2005
Legal
Industry
Report:
Personal
Injury
Insights.”
The
report
was
released
earlier
this
month,
and
in
addition
to
AI
adoption
data,
also
includes
insights
on
adoption
rates
for
workflow
and
financial
management
tools,
evolving
office
arrangements,
remote
work
technology
preferences,
and
the
productivity
and
profitability
gains
firms
achieve
with
online
billing
and
payment
solutions.
When
it
comes
to
AI,
the
survey
revealed
that
personal
injury
lawyers
are
ahead
of
the
curve,
with
37%
saying
they
use
generative
AI
in
their
work
compared
to
31%
of
lawyers
overall.
Despite
notable
individual
use,
firmwide
adoption
is
still
limited,
with
only
19%
of
PI
firms
formally
implementing
AI.
However,
those
firms
are
approaching
AI
thoughtfully,
with
39%
preferring
to
use
AI
built
into
trusted
tools
already
in
place
in
the
firm,
34%
focusing
on
a
vendor’s
understanding
of
their
workflows,
and
23%
saying
they
trust
legal-specific
tools
more
than
consumer
products.
A
quarter
also
pointed
to
ethical
alignment
as
a
top
consideration.
In
other
words,
PI
lawyers
are
open
to
AI,
but
are
more
likely
to
prefer
trusted
legal
software
vendors
that
ensure
built-in
compliance
with
the
profession’s
ethical
standards.
Personal
injury
lawyers
incorporate
AI
into
their
daily
work
in
many
different
ways.
Respondents
reported
using
it
for
everything
from
summarizing
medical
records
and
depositions
to
drafting
interrogatories,
correspondence,
and
even
text
messages.
They’re
also
applying
it
to
marketing,
case
evaluation,
and
research.
Among
those
using
AI
tools,
the
most
common
tasks
reported
were
drafting
correspondence
(52%),
brainstorming
(46%),
and
drafting
documents
(39%).
Only
a
small
subset
of
lawyers
are
heavy
users,
with
14%
relying
on
AI
daily
and
16%
weekly,
but
the
use
cases
they
identified
show
just
how
versatile
the
technology
can
be
in
PI
firms,
particularly
when
it
comes
to
repetitive
drafting
and
information-heavy
tasks.
Not
surprisingly,
the
data
shows
that
when
PI
lawyers
use
AI,
efficiency
follows.
At
the
firm
level,
nearly
a
third
of
respondents
reported
at
least
some
efficiency
gains,
with
4%
noting
significant
improvements
and
only
1%
seeing
any
decrease.
On
the
individual
level,
the
results
are
more
mixed.
About
29%
of
respondents
said
they
saved
one
to
five
hours
per
week
with
AI,
but
the
majority
haven’t
yet
experienced
noticeable
time
savings.
This
suggests
that
while
the
potential
for
AI
to
improve
workflows
is
clear,
most
PI
lawyers
are
still
in
the
early
stages
of
figuring
out
how
to
translate
that
promise
into
consistent,
tangible
results.
Looking
ahead,
the
data
shows
that
most
PI
firms
are
still
figuring
out
their
AI
timeline.
Sixty-two
percent
said
they’re
unsure
when,
or
if,
they’ll
adopt.
But
among
those
with
a
plan,
16%
expect
to
adopt
AI
within
the
next
year,
and
another
8%
within
six
months.
For
firms
already
using
AI,
the
goals
are
clear.
Sixty-one
percent
anticipate
increased
productivity,
44%
expect
cost
savings,
and
36%
believe
AI
will
replace
some
administrative
functions.
What’s
especially
interesting
is
that
PI
firms
are
more
likely
than
lawyers
overall
to
expect
AI
to
replace
outsourced
work
(19%
vs.
12%
overall).
Given
the
volume
of
routine,
repetitive
tasks
in
PI
practices,
this
expectation
makes
sense
and
highlights
why
PI
firms
may
be
uniquely
positioned
to
benefit
from
AI’s
potential
to
reduce
costs
through
outsourcing
and
expedite
case
management.
When
it
comes
to
adoption
challenges,
PI
lawyers
share
many
of
the
same
concerns
as
the
broader
legal
community.
Thirty-seven
percent
cited
lack
of
trust
in
AI
results,
and
another
37%
flagged
ethical
concerns,
nearly
identical
to
the
numbers
for
lawyers
overall.
Waiting
for
the
technology
to
mature
was
also
common
(41%),
along
with
concerns
about
privilege
(31%).
But
PI
lawyers
distinguish
themselves
in
what
they
hope
to
achieve
with
AI
tools.
More
than
half
(56%)
rated
summarizing
and
analyzing
medical
records
as
a
top
priority.
Other
highly
ranked
features
included
summarizing
lengthy
documents
(48%),
analyzing
multiple
documents
at
once
(41%),
extracting
data
from
files
(39%),
translation
(38%),
and
cite-checking
(34%).
These
results
show
that
PI
lawyers
are
focused
on
the
realities
of
their
practice:
high
volumes
of
medical
records,
repetitive
drafting,
and
information-heavy
tasks
that
are
well
suited
to
be
handled
by
AI.
Looking
ahead,
legal
technology
adoption
journeys
will
continue
to
be
closely
aligned
with
the
realities
of
each
practice
area.
Personal
injury
lawyers
already
show
a
greater
willingness
to
experiment
with
generative
AI,
while
other
specialties
may
take
longer
to
get
on
board.
Understanding
these
nuances
matters
because
there’s
no
one-size-fits-all
roadmap
for
legal
technology
innovation.
In
other
words,
there
won’t
be
one
defining
moment
when
“lawyers”
embrace
AI.
Adoption
will
happen
practice
by
practice,
firm
by
firm
—
driven
less
by
hype
and
more
by
the
(sometimes
mundane)
realities
of
the
work.
Nicole
Black is
a
Rochester,
New
York
attorney
and
Principal
Legal
Insight
Strategist
at 8am,
the
team
behind
8am
MyCase,
LawPay,
CasePeer,
and
DocketWise.
She’s
been blogging since
2005,
has
written
a weekly
column for
the
Daily
Record
since
2007,
is
the
author
of Cloud
Computing
for
Lawyers,
co-authors Social
Media
for
Lawyers:
the
Next
Frontier,
and
co-authors Criminal
Law
in
New
York.
She’s
easily
distracted
by
the
potential
of
bright
and
shiny
tech
gadgets,
along
with
good
food
and
wine.
You
can
follow
her
on
Twitter
at @nikiblack and
she
can
be
reached
at [email protected].