technology
image
of
AI
robot
installing
binary
data
from
node
stream
of
dynamic
array.
“The
customer’s
perception
is
your
reality.”
—
Kate
Zabriskie
To
paraphrase
what’s
often
been
said
about
getting
outside
lawyers
to
change
what
they
are
doing:
It’s
hard
to
tell
a
room
full
of
millionaires
the
way
they’re
doing
things
is
all
wrong.
Be
that
as
it
may,
a
new
study
by
the
Association
of
Corporate
Counsel
and
Everlaw
could
spell
trouble
and
be
harbinger
of
change
for
outside
lawyers.
Indeed,
I
have
often
said
that
real
change
in
how
outside
lawyers
deliver
legal
services
and
charge
for
them
won’t
change
unless
and
until
in-house
lawyers
demand
it.
ACC
did
a
survey
of
some
657
in-house
legal
professionals
across
30
countries.
What
the
ACC
wanted
to
find
out
was
what
the
current
rate
of
GenAI
adoption
by
in-house
legal
departments.
And
boy,
did
they
find
out.
The
Key
Findings
Here
are
some
key
findings:
-
67%
of
those
surveyed
said
they
are
currently
using
GenAI
or
at
least
using
beta
AI
projects
as
compared
to
38%
last
year. -
91%
of
those
using
GenAI
report
efficiency
as
the
top
benefit. -
64%
expect
to
rely
less
on
outside
counsel
as
a
result
of
AI
use. -
24%
of
legal
professionals
are
very
likely
to
push
for
change
in
billable
hour
model.
So
lots
of
GCs
are
using
AI
for
lots
of
things.
But
what
about
their
outside
counsel?
There
are
some
startling
statistics.
What
About
Outside
Counsel
Fifty-nine
percent
of
in-house
professionals
remain
unaware
of
whether
their
law
firms
are
using
the
technology
on
their
legal
matters.
And
even
more
startling:
as
of
now,
80%
—
yes,
80%!
—
of
those
surveyed
are
not
requiring
or
even
encouraging
outside
counsel
to
use
GenAI.
Even
more
telling:
Of
those
firms
who
are
using
GenAI,
59%
of
in-house
counsel
say
they
have
seen
no
noticeable
changes
in
what
is
being
billed.
No
wonder
law
firms
are
slow
to
change.
Why
change
what
you
are
doing
when
what
you
are
doing
has
made
you
millions,
particularly
if
no
one
is
telling
you
to.
And
the
59%
statistic
tells
me
that
firms
who
claim
to
be
using,
are
doing
just
that.
Claiming,
not
using.
The
Paradox
It’s
a
paradox.
In-house
counsel
are
using
GenAI
and
seeing
significant
benefits
but
aren’t
making
demands
on
outside
lawyers.
Why?
Several
reasons.
First,
I
think,
in
part,
in-house
counsel
don’t
want
to
mess
with
how
their
lawyers
do
their
work.
They
hired
the
lawyers
for
a
reason
—
to
do
something
in-house
can’t.
Therefore,
you
need
to
give
them
the
freedom
to
do
it.
Second,
you
can
never
underestimate
the
ability
of
outside
lawyers
to
paint
a
sky-is-falling
picture.
As
in,
I
would
use
GenAI,
but
you
know
if
it
makes
a
mistake,
the
case
could
be
doomed
(unsaid:
and
it
will
show
up
on
your
review,
Mr.
In-House).
Or
there
is
the
argument:
Yeah,
we
could
use
AI,
but
we
have
to
check
everything
and,
in
the
end,
it
will
just
cost
you
more.
(Forty-three
percent
of
the
respondents
cited
this
“fact.”)
Finally,
there
may
also
be
some
mistrust
involved.
In-house
counsel
can
control
and
monitor
in-house
use
of
AI.
They
can’t
control
outside
use.
Other
reasons
given
by
those
surveyed
range
from
it’s
too
early
and
law
firms
haven’t
adjusted
pricing
models
to
reflect
AI
efficiencies.
(Wait,
you
haven’t
asked
them
to.
Do
you
really
think
they
will
do
it
on
their
own
and
wound,
if
not
kill
the
cash
cow?)
I
have
to
say,
based
on
these
statistics,
law
firms
might
be
justified
in
thinking
let’s
just
stay
fat
dumb
and
happy.
But
I
think
despite
the
stats,
that
would
be
misguided
and
shortsighted.
Why?
Let’s
Not
Kid
Ourselves
As
the
study
indicates
and
I
have
written
before,
in-house
counsel
are
using
AI
tools
to
do
more
and
do
in-house
work
that
outside
lawyers
used
to
do.
That
will
inevitably
mean
fewer
matters
for
outside
lawyers
to
bill
for.
Okay,
but
there’s
also
more
work
for
outside
lawyers
to
do
as
I
have
mentioned
before
so
that
should
not
be
a
concern,
right?
Also
wrong.
Here’s
what’s
happening.
In-house
lawyers
are
seeing
the
power
of
these
tools
in
their
everyday
work.
They
are
seeing
how
much
more
they
can
accomplish
using
the
tools.
They
are
seeing
the
efficiencies
that
can
be
achieved.
As
they
come
to
trust
the
tools
more
and
more,
they
can’t
help
but
see
that
outside
legal
spend
could
be
reduced
if
only
outside
lawyers
used
the
tools
like
inside
counsel
are.
And
because
outside
lawyers
are
lagging
so
far
behind
in-house
and
apparently
making
little
effort
to
catch
up,
it’s
not
hard
to
envision
a
day
of
reckoning.
When
inside
counsel
say
enough
is
enough.
Or
vote
with
their
feet
and
flock
to
what
Zach
Abramowitz
has
described
as
AI
first
firms,
firms
that
embrace
AI
and
use
the
tools
to
practice
their
cases
at
a
fraction
of
the
time
it
takes
others.
Think
I
am
wrong?
Compare
again
these
two
sets
of
numbers:
67%
of
in-house
use
the
tools
and
almost
all
see
greater
efficiency.
Yet
80%
aren’t
demanding
outside
counsel
use
the
tools.
Yet.
That’s
like
saying
most
of
us
would
continue
to
use
Amazon
if
it
delivered
goods
by
horse
and
buggy
when
we
know
there
is
a
better
way.
At
some
point,
we
would
demand
a
better
delivery
mechanism
or
go
to
someone
who
provided
something
better.
Your
clients’
perceptions
are
indeed
your
reality.
So,
law
firms,
don’t
kid
yourself.
Your
clients
are
about
to
wake
up.
You
better
do
likewise,
or
your
competition
may
eat
you
alive.
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.