The Use of Advanced AI in Law Firms: Could it Mark the Decline of Hourly Billing?
Law firms saw a notable rise in the adoption of genAI models last year, with an average of three to five models being tested with the aim of reducing workloads.
Law firms saw a notable rise in the adoption of genAI models last year, with an average of three to five models being tested with the aim of reducing workloads. This trend also led to the recruitment of ancillary resources like innovation teams and knowledge management experts, according to Friedmann from Gartner.
The speculation around the extinction of hourly billing has been ongoing for approximately three decades, without any definitive outcomes so far, as pointed out by Ryan O’Leary, IDC’s research director for privacy and legal technology. “However, if there is anything that can potentially disrupt it, it will be this,” he remarked.
Nonetheless, O’Leary warned that there are numerous unresolved issues surrounding genAI that need to be addressed before it can fully automate legal services. This includes considerations on the cost of implementing genAI, its level of accuracy, and the extent of its security features.
O’Leary highlighted, “The expenses associated with utilizing AI could be equivalent to the costs of engaging an associate.”
Is genAI more cost-effective and precise compared to a legal practitioner?
Despite AI’s capacity to execute tasks previously handled by lawyers and other legal professionals, concerns persist regarding accuracy, security, and potential errors. Similar to the healthcare sector, the confidentiality of client information remains a critical concern.
Wilkins from Harvard raised concerns about copyright protection and the origin of data used to train large language models. He mentioned, “There is significant experimentation in creating tailored AI models and large language models. Suppliers argue that their models are solely trained on legal content, reducing the risk of errors.”
While law firms acknowledge the downsides of AI, lawyers are expected to continue utilizing the technology irrespective of corporate policies. According to Wilkins, the transformative potential of genAI is too substantial to be ignored due to associated risks.
Wilkins emphasized the challenge of setting overly high standards for AI when compared to human workers. He questioned, “Is the reliability of AI similar to sending an associate to locate documents in a warehouse? Is that method 99% accurate?”
In conclusion, whether genAI aids in certain tasks or not, the attorneys are ultimately responsible for the outcomes, be it favorable or otherwise. The question of whether technology will replace legal professionals and aides is still uncertain.
According to Swansburg from ClearyX, the current genAI tools are not advanced enough to replace human roles in many legal tasks. She stated, “While it may not be replacing jobs yet, it is definitely reshaping how they are performed.”
Wilkin’s perspective is that the integration of AI within legal practices is still at a nascent stage, but there is immense potential for greater efficiencies. “We are still in the early stages with AI adoption in the legal sector, with significant benefits waiting to be unlocked,” he expressed.
About Author
