Ed.
Note: This
is
part
of
a
series
detailing
Gen
AI’s
impact
on
the
legal
profession
from
our
friends
at
Thomson
Reuters.
For
a
further
deep
dive
on
Gen
AI,
download
the Future
of
Professionals
Report
here.
Generative
AI
is
one
of
the
biggest
talking
points
today.
It
promises
to
transform
how
work
is
done
across
multiple
sectors,
and
legal
work
is
a
particularly
rich
area
of
opportunity.
Many
firms
and
legal
departments
are
already
switched
on
to
Generative
AI,
and
there
is
no
avoiding
it.
We
spoke
to
Zach
Warren
from
the
Thomson
Reuters
Institute
about
the
potential
and
pitfalls
of
the
technology,
and
to
separate
fact
from
fiction
—
including
a
question
about
notorious
generative
AI
“hallucinations.”
How
has
Generative
AI
landed
in
legal
so
far?
Warren: With surprising
enthusiasm.
Legal
has
something
of
a
reputation
for
slow
uptake
of
tech,
which
we’ve
seen
recently
with
the
cautious
adoption
of
cloud
and
some
types
of
AI.
That
may
be
because lawyers
and
firms
have
preferred
to
do
things
the
way
they’ve
always
been
done.
But
with
Generative
AI
it’s
been
a
different
story. Thomson
Reuters
conducted
a
survey
only
a
few
months
after
ChatGPT
was
launched,
and
it
found
that
firms
were
already
playing
around
with
it.
Interestingly,
82%
of
survey
respondents
said
Generative
AI
could
be
used
for
legal
tasks,
and
51%
said
it
should
be
used.
However,
that’s
on
a
hypothetical
level
—
at
the
time
in
April,
only
3%
had
actually
adopted
Generative
AI.
And
even
now,
the
vast
majority
of
legal
professionals
are
in
“wait
and
see”
mode.
Who
should
be
overseeing
the
adoption
of
Generative
AI?
Warren: At
the
moment
it’s
primarily CIOs,
IT
directors,
and
CTOs
who
have
been
tasked
to
be
at
the
forefront
of
technology
adoption.
But
Generative
AI
will
be
the
most
transformative
tech
in
legal,
so
partners
and
managing
partners
should
be
learning
more
about
it
now.
In
fact,
everyone
should
have
a
stake
in
it
to
some
extent,
because
Generative
AI
is
intended
to
be
democratized
—
so
we
will
see
it
being
used
in
everything from
onboarding
new
employees
to
day-to-day
transactional
work.
Can
you
describe
some
of
the
impacts
it
will
have
on
legal
practice?
Warren: Speed,
efficiency,
consistency
in
research,
document
reviews,
and
many
repetitive
tasks
are
some
of
the
many
promised
benefits.
However,
there
is
uncertainty
around
who
realizes
the
value
of
Generative
AI.
One
of
the
biggest
questions
for
partners
will
be,
“What
is
chargeable
now?”
Firms
bill
in
six-minute
increments,
which
requires
great
transparency
—
will
clients
insist
firms
cut
billable
hours
now
that
work
can
be
done
much
faster
with
Generative
AI,
or
even
done
by
the
clients
themselves?
Going
back
to
the
survey
I
mentioned, 80%
of
corporate
clients
actually
want
their
firms
to
use
Generative
AI
—
but
they
also
want
firms
to
add
value
and
skills
above
and
beyond
the
tech.
So,
firms
will
really
need
to
prove
the
value
that
they’re
providing
in
this
new
era,
which
puts
the
emphasis
on
more
experienced
lawyers.
How
does
the
cost
of
implementing
generative
AI
in
law
firms
compare
to
other
technology
investments
commonly
made
in
the
legal
industry?
Warren: It’s
a
bit
higher
right
now,
but
that’s
for
generative
AI
across
the
board.
Generative
AI
requires
a
lot
of
data
to
work,
which
means
a
lot
of
processing
power
to
run
the
searches.
There
just
aren’t
enough
servers
to
make
generative
AI
as
widespread
as
the
technology
deserves
right
now,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
smart
people
working
on
that
problem.
Will
things
really
change
for
junior
legal
professionals?
Warren: Absolutely.
Manual
work
like
research
and
document
or
contract
drafting
—
obvious
use
cases
for
Generative
AI
—
is
typically
the
domain
of
first-
and
second-year
associates.
I
heard
a
good
quote
recently:
“All
the
writing
you
learn
in
law
school
will
become
editing.”
That’s
because
Generative
AI
is
so
good
at
producing
first
drafts.
We’re
seeing
lots
of
interest
in
firms
and
departments
hiring
prompt
engineers
—
and
this
is
a
skill
which
could
soon
become
part
of
every
new
lawyer’s
training.
Can
you
explain
what
Generative
AI
hallucinations
are?
Warren: This
is
one
of
the
biggest
concerns
surrounding
the
technology
currently.
Hallucinations
are
basically errors
that
pop
up
in
the
output
of
Generative
AI,
presented
as
fact,
and
which
it
can’t
recognize
as
wrong.
The
reason
for
this
is
that
Generative
AI
is
not
actually
“intelligent”
—
it
predicts
the
next
possible
word
in
a
sentence,
giving
the
most
likely
answer
based
on
previous
results.
Even
OpenAI’s
GPT-4
is
around
85-90%
factually
accurate
on
multiple
choice
questions
—
that
level
of
accuracy
is
obviously
not
where
you
want
to
be
in
legal.
However,
Retrieval
Augmented
Generation
(RAG)
models
can
take
feedback
about
the
accuracy
of
answers
and
fold
that
back
in,
so
things
could
improve
quickly.
How
should
the
legal
industry
approach
Generative
AI
in
the
short
term?
Warren: At
the
moment,
Generative
AI
—
particularly
public,
open-source
tools
—
is
not
a
good
fit
beyond
general
question-and-answer
tasks.
Firms
and
departments
need
to
create
guidelines
around
proper
usage.
And
the
applications
of
Generative
AI
should
for
now
be
restricted
to
internal
work,
or
work
where
you
can
afford
to
be
wrong
—
and
someone
always
needs
to
check
the
output.
For
the
immediate
future,
most
usage
of
Generative
AI
will
be
through
new
features
baked
into pre-existing
tools
from
trusted
technology
providers.
However,
some
of
the
very
biggest
firms
are
hiring
data
scientists
and
developing
their
own
knowledge
models.
We’re
going
to
see
a
hybrid
of
these
approaches,
with
legal
technology
vendors
keeping
in-house
data
behind
a
wall
but
checking
it
against
publicly
available
datasets.
This
means
the
results
will
be
both
accurate
and
up
to
date.
Zach
Warren
leads
technology
and
innovation
content
for
the
Thomson
Reuters
Institute.
Zach
has
been
writing
and
speaking
on
tech
and
innovation
for
more
than
a
decade,
and
with
Thomson
Reuters,
charts
the
future
of
professional
services
industries,
including
legal,
tax,
and
risk
&
fraud,
through
writing,
podcasts,
speaking
engagements,
and
more.
Zach
was
also
the
lead
author
of
TRI’s
Generative
AI
in
the
Law
Firm
Report,
among
other
technology-centric
reports.
Before
coming
to
Thomson
Reuters,
Zach
was
the
editor-in-chief
of
ALM’s
Legaltech
News
and
featured
on
Law.com,
The
American
Lawyer
and
ALM
events
such
as
Legalweek.