AI Adoption in Legal Field Surges 21% in 2024

In 2019, a metal cart on an Avianca flight struck Roberto Mata on the knee, leading to a lawsuit against the airline. The case gained notoriety in 2023 when the judge fined the two lawyers representing Mata $5,000 for citing six fictitious cases invented by artificial intelligence software in their brief. This incident marked the first instance of such a penalty and served as a cautionary tale for lawyers about the risks of relying on AI. Despite this warning, there have been 139 instances of legal briefs containing AI-invented citations since then, including over 30 this May alone. These instances involve both self-represented litigants and prominent national law firms, highlighting the growing integration of AI in legal practice.

While these cases of AI misuse in the courtroom are notable, they are exceptions. Most lawyers using AI do so responsibly, verifying AI-produced citations before presenting them to a judge. AI is increasingly being used for research, document review, and even drafting legal briefs, transforming the legal profession. The transformative power of AI became widely recognized in November 2022 with the release of OpenAI's ChatGPT. This marked a significant shift in how AI is used in legal research, which has been a focus for over a decade with tools like Ironclad and DISCO. The past three years have seen accelerated adoption of AI in the legal field, driven by the availability and power of generative AI.

In February, the Federal Bar Association surveyed over 2,800 legal professionals, finding that 21% used AI in their practice in 2024, with the number rising to 39% for attorneys at large law firms. A separate survey by Rev found that 48% of respondents used AI for research. The number of AI offerings for the legal profession is growing, with services like Harvey and Clio leading the way. Harvey, built on AI models from companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, specializes in drafting and research. Clio, based in Vancouver, British Columbia, offers practice management tools and raised $900 million in 2024, valuing the company at $3 billion. Harvey raised $300 million in late June, valuing the company at $5 billion. Most law students and junior lawyers are likely using general services like ChatGPT due to their accessibility. In large firms, CoCounsel, developed by Casetext and now part of Westlaw, is popular for its focus on client confidentiality and data protection.

For decades, law firms have operated under the “finders, minders, and grinders” model, with a pyramid structure where a handful of rainmakers bring in clients, senior lawyers oversee work, and associates handle the bulk of tasks. AI is displacing large swaths of mundane “grinder” work, such as document review, contract drafting, and basic research. This reduces time spent on tedious tasks, lowers costs, and frees up lawyers for deeper and more strategic matters. However, there are concerns about the impact on training the next generation of lawyers, as AI may reduce the need for extensive reading of case law and statutes. AI is also taking on tasks like writing briefs and crafting arguments, which are traditionally the domain of more senior attorneys. This raises questions about how lawyers will spend their time and charge for their services in the future.

Clients may increasingly demand alternative fee arrangements, such as fixed blocks of time or flat fees, as AI can perform many legal tasks more efficiently. The legal profession has traditionally guarded its business model, so such changes may not be immediate. However, AI is already providing lawyers with additional time, with the Thomson Reuters survey indicating that widespread adoption of AI could free up four hours a week for the typical lawyer, or 200 hours a year. This time could be used to expand their client base, develop additional skills, or increase billable hours.

Pablo Arredondo, creator of the CoCounsel AI tool and vice president at Thomson Reuters, frequently runs seminars for judges about the intersection of law and artificial intelligence. He reflects on the phrase from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that judges should encourage the “just, speedy, and inexpensive” resolution of every action. This could change if courts adopt AI tools in a widespread and effective fashion. Such adoption is already beginning, including in Massachusetts, where the court system is using automated tools to help tenants facing eviction navigate complex legal forms. Arredondo emphasizes the moral imperative to use AI for better outcomes but cautions that its deployment must occur with strict oversight. Chief Justice John Roberts also highlighted the need for caution and humility in using AI, reflecting the legal profession's efforts to balance efficiency gains with safety.