One
of
my
favorite
pastimes
in
recent
months
has
been
reading
newly
released
reports
on
legal
professionals’
use
of
generative
artificial
intelligence
(AI).
As
the
author
of
one
of
those
reports,
the
2025
AffiniPay
Legal
Industry
Report,
I
find
it
particularly
interesting
to
review
the
analyses
and
insights
offered
in
other
publications.
Lately,
new
reports
have
been
announced
nearly
every
other
week.
While
that
may
seem
excessive,
this
onslaught
of
legal
AI
data
is
really
quite
helpful.
The
technology
is
advancing
quickly
and
is
increasingly
pervasive,
so
every
statistic
provides
much-needed
visibility
into
overarching
adoption
trends
across
the
profession.
One
recent
example
is
the
Ironclad
2025
State
of
AI
Report,
which
was
released
in
early
June.
It’s
based
on
survey
responses
from
800
legal
practitioners
equally
split
between
law
firms
and
corporate
legal
teams.
One
of
the
most
notable
data
points
from
the
survey
relates
to
AI
adoption,
which
is
at
69%
overall.
However,
there
is
a
26-point
gap
between
law
firms
and
in-house
teams,
with
law
firm
adoption
at
55%
and
in-house
at
81%.
These
AI
adoption
levels
are
significantly
higher
than
those
from
most
other
recent
reports.
Generally
speaking,
most
other
sources
indicate
that
AI
adoption
in
the
legal
profession
is
much
lower,
with
approximately
one-third
of
respondents
using
AI
for
work-related
purposes.
It’s
unclear
to
me
why
the
Ironclad
percentages
are
so
much
higher.
Perhaps
it
has
to
do
with
the
phrasing
of
the
survey
question
or
the
population
that
was
surveyed.
The
report
indicates
that
an
independent
research
firm
with
double
opt-in
conducted
the
survey,
but
in
the
absence
of
further
information,
it’s
difficult
to
hypothesize
the
reason
for
this
statistical
disparity.
Another
really
interesting
finding
is
that
25%
of
respondents
reported
being
comfortable
with
AI
acting
as
an
agent
on
their
behalf.
This
statistic
is
surprising
since
the
concept
of
AI
agents
is
a
relatively
new
one.
Legal
professionals
tend
to
be
risk-averse
and
are
often
unwilling
to
be
the
first
to
adopt
experimental
technologies.
That
a
full
quarter
of
those
surveyed
are
“comfortable”
with
this
emerging
AI
use
case
is
both
unusual
and
promising.
One
reason
could
be
that
positive
pandemic-era
experiences
with
technology,
combined
with
the
obvious
time-saving
benefits
of
AI,
have
led
the
profession
to
be
more
receptive
to
cutting-edge
technologies.
Other
survey
findings
support
this
hypothesis:
legal
professionals
are
convinced
that
AI
is
a
game-changing
tool.
The
vast
majority
—
93%
—
agree
that
AI
has
improved
the
way
they
work,
and
96%
say
it
has
made
achieving
business
objectives
easier.
Another
57%
say
it
allows
them
to
focus
more
on
strategic
work,
and
48%
value
AI
for
managing
routine
tasks,
including
case
law
summarization
(61%),
document
review
for
litigation
(45%),
high-level
research
(42%),
drafting
legal
documents
(42%),
and
communication
with
stakeholders
(37%).
Of
those
who
use
it
for
communication
purposes,
64%
agree
that
AI
helps
them
communicate
better.
Survey
respondents
also
reported
other
benefits
from
using
AI,
with
76%
agreeing
that
AI
helped
decrease
feelings
of
burnout,
and
46%
percent
believing
AI
creates
more
career
opportunities.
Job
replacement
concerns
dropping
8%
year
over
year
across
all
respondents.
However,
not
all
legal
professionals
view
AI’s
impact
on
their
livelihoods
through
rose-colored
glasses.
Just
over
a
third
(36%)
of
respondents
believe
AI
creates
fewer
opportunities
for
legal
professionals,
with
those
in
firms
(40%)
more
likely
to
be
worried
than
their
in-house
counterparts
(33%).
Other
hurdles
cited
regarding
AI
adoption
included
security
issues
(48%).
Accuracy
concerns
are
close
behind
at
44%,
up
4%
from
last
year.
Other
challenges
mentioned
were
training
deficiencies
(24%)
and
issues
navigating
AI
policies
(23%).
One
interesting
question
asked
in
the
survey
that
I’ve
not
seen
addressed
elsewhere
was
whether
AI
should
be
regulated
by
the
government.
The
overwhelming
majority
of
respondents,
75%,
think
it
needs
some
type
of
governmental
oversight,
while
only
9%
believe
AI
should
be
wholly
unregulated.
Overall,
this
report
offers
an
interesting
snapshot
of
legal
professionals’
perspectives
on
generative
AI.
From
surprisingly
high
adoption
rates
to
an
unexpected
comfort
with
agent-based
use
cases,
these
findings
add
food
for
thought
to
the
ongoing
AI
conversation.
For
those
closely
following
this
space
or
who
are
simply
interested
in
how
our
profession
is
approaching
AI
implementation,
this
report
is
worth
reviewing
and
comparing
with
others
released
this
year
to
better
understand
where
we’ve
been,
what’s
next,
and
where
we’re
headed
after
that.
Nicole
Black
is
a
Rochester,
New
York
attorney
and
Principal
Legal
Insight
Strategist
at AffiniPay,
parent
company
of
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].