This probably seems incredibly frightening, and it should be. Because lawyers and especially older lawyers (like the ones on the management committee) are usually resistant to change. Unfortunately and let’s be clear about this: attorneys don’t have a choice or the luxury of time, when it comes to AI.
This was made clear to me, by Professor David Grenardo of St. Thomas University of Law. “Given the advantages of AI and its utility, the greatest misuse of AI by lawyers will likely be failing to use AI in many instances. Failing to understand and utilize generative AI leads to duty of competence issues (Rule 1.1) and possibly billing issues (Rule 1.5). Now, if a lawyer is writing a contract, reviewing documents, or researching, and they do not use AI to assist at all, then they are likely not completing these tasks competently. Lawyers cannot hide behind statements like, ‘I just don’t get AI; it’s not my deal; I’ll leave that to the tech lawyers; I’m a traditional, old-school lawyer.’ Moreover, if lawyers do not use AI and consequently spend a lot more time on tasks than they would have using AI, then that could (and should) be viewed as generating fees that are unreasonable.”
While attending the AI4 Conference in Las Vegas, I asked the AI Practice Chairs from Jones Day, Kirkland & Ellis and Foley & Lardner, whether they felt Professor Grenardo was correct. They unanimously voiced their agreement with him.
Given the need to take immediate and decisive action, one would think that law firm management would be acting quickly. Such an assumption would be wrong.
63% of Lawyers Think Firm Management Doesn’t Know What to Do About AI.
Of course, there are nimble market adapters who are taking action and leading the pack. Even the 3,000 attorney Magic Circle Behemoth Allen & Overy, acted swiftly and collaborated with OpenAI to create Harvey, a legal specific ChatGPT (that doesn’t hallucinate!).
But those are the exceptions and not the rule. From polling and feedback, less than 10% of law firms have actually started integrating AI in their practices.
My company did a poll of 300 attorneys about AI – 100 were from AmLaw firms, 100 from mid-sized (50-250) firms and 100 were from small firms (10-49). Here is the question we asked and the results we received: How Has Your Firm’s Management Committee Responded to the Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Practice of Law?
Embraced It & Educated Us Well: 42
Rejected It or Banned Its Use: 69
They Seem Unsure & Unclear About What To Do or How to Train Us: 189
Twenty of the attorneys who responded that their firm was embracing AI, were members of management committees or listed as having a management role.
What’s more interesting is that when we found 81 attorneys who responded that Management was Unsure and Unclear, were from the firms claiming to embrace AI. Another five were under the impression those same firms had banned the use of GenAI altogether.
That’s a serious disconnect.
What have managing partners and management committees been doing for the last eight months? The overwhelming response has been that they have “formed committees” (the ultimate law firm procrastination tool), “done research” and had their attorneys give presentations on AI.
How have these internal presentations been received? The partners I’ve spoken with say it’s like watching a student give a book report. Lots of dry data but nothing usable. For example, in follow up polling and emails, not one attorney said they have received any training at all, on the following:
