As
2025
draws
to
a
close,
one
theme
has
defined
the
year:
Artificial
Intelligence
(AI).
No
matter
where
you
looked
or
who
you
talked
to,
AI
was
front
and
center,
from
CLE
seminars
and
conference
keynotes
to
news
coverage
and
industry
reports.
For
example,
the
American
Bar
Association
recently
released
its
“AI
Task
Force
on
Law
and
Artificial
Intelligence
Report.”
This
was
the
second
in
a
series
of
reports
addressing
AI’s
impact
on
the
legal
profession.
The
report
covered
a
lot
of
ground,
with
topics
ranging
from
AI
adoption
and
its
impact
on
access
to
justice
to
how
law
schools
and
the
courts
are
approaching
AI.
One
of
its
key
conclusions
was
that
our
profession
has
reached
a
crossroads:
AI
adoption
has
surpassed
understanding.
The
majority
of
legal
professionals
now
use
AI
but
do
not
fully
appreciate
the
practical
and
ethical
challenges
that
arise
when
using
AI.
In
other
words,
as
the
report’s
authors
explained,
“the
conversation
has
shifted
from
whether
to
use
the
AI
technology
to
how
to
use
it.”
According
to
the
report,
legal
professionals
continue
to
accomplish
relatively
simple
tasks
with
AI,
such
as
summarization,
document
review,
drafting
brief
documents,
and
issuing
client
alerts,
rather
than
more
complex
legal
work
that
involves
confidential
client
information.
This
finding
aligns
with
the
results
of
the
8am
2026
Legal
Industry
Report
that
I
authored,
and
that
will
be
released
this
spring.
That
data
shows
that
AI
implementation
in
law
firms
focuses
on
routine
work,
with
top
tasks
including
drafting
correspondence,
general
research,
and
brainstorming.
This
pattern
of
use
helps
explain
why
cost
will
play
such
a
significant
role
in
the
next
phase
of
AI
adoption.
As
AI
tools
improve
and
concerns
around
risk
and
reliability
decrease,
practitioners
will
seek
to
apply
additional
AI
tools
to
more
complex
legal
work.
Whether
they’ll
be
able
to
do
so,
however,
will
depend
largely
on
affordability,
and
that
may
be
determined
by
firm
size.
AI
has
the
potential
to
level
the
playing
field
by
enabling
solo
and
small-firm
lawyers
to
compete
more
effectively
with
larger
firms.
However,
because
“the
legal
industry
is
moving
toward
a
stratification
of
firms
into
various
degrees
of
technology
‘haves’
and
‘have-nots,’”
many
of
the
most
advanced
legal
AI
tools
remain
prohibitively
expensive.
In
the
absence
of
changes
to
pricing
models
or
policy
intervention,
larger
firms
will
continue
to
retain
their
longstanding
competitive
advantage.
That
same
cost
dynamic
extends
beyond
law
firms
and
into
the
access-to-justice
space
where,
once
again,
AI
offers
tremendous
unrealized
potential.
The
report
cites
a
Berkeley-led
study
documenting
100-plus
real-world
AI
use
cases
in
legal
aid,
“including
ratings,
recommendations,
and
estimates
of
efficiency
gains.” However,
pricing
is
once
again
a
barrier,
and
“high
subscription
costs
for
the
best
and
most
reliable
legal
AI
tools
might
make
those
tools
unaffordable
and
inaccessible
to
the
access-to-justice
community.”
The
report
also
highlights
another
area
where
AI’s
promise
has
not
been
fully
realized:
legal
education.
Historically,
law
schools
have
been
slow
to
integrate
technology
into
their
curricula,
but
the
pervasiveness
of
AI
is
beginning
to
reverse
this
trend.
Until
recently,
most
law
schools
turned
a
blind
eye
to
AI,
forcing
law
students
to
fend
for
themselves.
Students
from
16
schools,
including
Harvard
Law,
the
UCLA
School
of
Law,
and
the
University
of
Miami
Law
School,
filled
that
gap
by
forming
student-led
groups
devoted
to
understanding
AI’s
impact
on
the
profession.
Fortunately,
that
tide
is
finally
turning.
Fifty-five
percent
of
law
schools
now
offer
AI-focused
courses.
Another
83%
provide
hands-on
AI
experiences
like
clinics
or
labs,
and
Case
Western
Reserve
Law
School
even
requires
all
first-year
students
to
obtain
legal
AI
certification.
Recognizing
that
AI
isn’t
going
away
and
will
only
become
more
ubiquitous,
law
schools
are
finally
treating
AI
literacy
as
a
core
professional
skill
rather
than
an
optional
add-on.
Our
profession
is
entering
a
pivotal
phase
where
AI’s
impact
can’t
be
ignored
and
must
instead
be
accommodated.
It’s
already
part
of
more
basic
workflows
in
law
firms.
The
next
stage
of
adoption
will
determine
whether
it
benefits
those
who
need
it
most
or
follows
the
money
to
the
top
of
the
food
chain.
Will
it
expand
access
to
legal
services
and
improve
the
quality
of
representation,
or
instead
reinforce
existing
gaps
across
our
profession
and
system
of
justice?
Only
time
will
tell.
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].