Loading More Content
AI is integral to client demand as there is current “more for less” demand as the legal industry is currently a buyer’s market. Client’s are wanting value for money, which can be offered through different AI tools, especially as it has been proven that AI reduces the cost per matter by reducing the time fee earners spend on drafting, summarising points and all the general matter administration that typically cannot be billed for.
Therefore, while AI is integral to gaining and retaining clients, firms now use AI in their bid and tenders for new clients and to assist the firm when onboarding clients. For example, using a firm’s database, AI can produce a summary of the firm’s relevant experience which can be used in the pitching process.
Regarding client onboarding, law firms are increasingly using AI tools to generate client engagement letters. Fee earners and/or support staff input key client and matter details, which the AI uses to draft and tailor a bespoke engagement letter based on the firm’s precedent documents.
The same AI enabled document automation tools that is used for engagement letters can also used for many drafting tasks such as contracts and agreements, leases, corporate documents such as board minutes and board resolutions, litigation documents such as particulars of claim, defences and witness statements and finance documents such as loan agreements, guarantees and debentures. AI can also be used to help lawyers draft highly specific clauses as lawyers can input specific prompts and a chatbot can export suggested clauses that specifically manages the risk of the client.
Many firms are adopting Quillbot for Microsoft Word or Wordeep Proofreading as a proof reading tool for fee earners. These tools can help with definition checks, cross referencing errors, spelling and grammar mistakes and can perform a square bracket checks (lawyers use a lot of square brackets where things are yet to be agreed, this could include the date the agreement is made on, the consideration and sometimes even the parties to legal agreements).
Most law firms will subscribe to Practical Law and Westlaw. These platforms offer Deep Research which helps analyse legal questions inputted and creates a generative AI response rounded in authoritative legal materials such as case law, legislation and commentary rather than general internet sources. Furthermore, unlike certain AI platforms, Deep Research provides a research log that fee earners can follow to understand how the AI reached their conclusion.
Additionally, lawyers can use Copilot can assist with their legal research. Copilot and other AI tools have the ability to review case law, legislation and new bills which can help lawyers when they are searching for precedents and authorities. Additionally, judgments are often quite lengthly and using AI can be an efficient way of summarising large texts like judgments.
For general case management, many firms use Relativity to organise and review large datasets of client data. It can within seconds remove duplicates and can highlight more relevant documents that fee earners should independently review. Relativity can also be helpful in the disclosure process as it can produce a first attempt of what parts of the relevant documents should be redacted. A fee earner can then review this and either accept or reject the suggested redactions and if needed add in further redactions.
AI is also being used for due diligence as it can be used to analyse documents provided by all the parties; AI can within minutes identify the relevant documents and can enable the lawyer to search the document for any relevant keywords or phrases. AI can also help extract potential issues within documents that may want to be flagged to the other side as part of the due diligence process.
There are a myriad of third-party AI tools are the disposal to law firms. Whilst many law firms are exploring these third-party tools, some firms just simply cannot afford to integrate these tools or to invest in the creation of bespoke AI tools. Around 91% of law firms with over 20 employees have adopted AI in some capacity compared to only 77% of firms with under 20 employees.
A popular provider is Harvey AI which can assist with:
Corporate clients such as HSBC have rolled out Harvey AI into their practice with the aim of improving their in-house legal operations and efficiency.
CoCounsel is another popular platform that helps its 1 million users with legal research, tax calculations, compliance reviews, and contract drafting.
It should be noted that the majority of third-party AI tools do not allow client’s data to be used in their AI training, therefore many law firms do permit confidential client information to be inputted into these AI providers, however, lawyers should check their firms approved AI tools.
Law firms are now leveraging their in-house AI tools as a way of gaining new clients. Around 50% of the top 20 law firms have successfully built their own AI models or have partnered with a third-party provider to create a firm-only version. Some example’s include Linklaters’ Applied Intelligence, Dentons’ DAISY and Kirkland & Ellis’ Fund Formation Engine.
The main goal of these tools is to streamline the work for lawyers, for example, Fund Formation Engine will use AI to more efficiently support fund formation clients and their investors across the entire private equity fundraising lifecycle.
As Linklaters is well known for its litigation practice, their AI is being used to help client’s identify and manage risk and to provide legal solutions, therefore helping clients avoid costly litigation procedures.
While around 89% of lawyers use AI tools in some capacity, there is some skepticism amongst lawyers regarding confidentiality, AI errors, and over-reliance on the technology. Two important cases (upon others) that highlight the risk of AI hallucinations are Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar & Pitstop and Cork v Smith.
In Cork v Smith, during a routine insolvency application, AI hallucinated an insolvency rule that does not exist. In this case, the law firm self-reported itself to the Solicitor’s Regulatory Authority. In Rodney v Gee’z Micro Bar, the law firm filed three documents in support of their application for permission to appeal which contained precedents that AI had hallucinated. The judge in this case stated that ‘the use of AI is a large and growing problem and the citation of fictitious or fake authorities is a serious threat to the integrity of the justice system.’
These cases highlight the balance law firms must take when responding to client demand and expectations but also retaining integrity by using legitimate authority instead of AI hallucinations. Unfortunately, using an incorrect authority can undermine a client’s case therefore it is imperative that lawyers check all the case law and legislation that it relies upon.
Law firms are currently mainly using AI to assist clients with their work streams and specifically with the output of legal advice and documents. However, Clio’s 2026 Legal Insights Report states that AI could be used to assist firms with their data, for example, to review the rates of fee earners, to address staffing needs and to help with client experience. Therefore, AI could be integrated to every stage of client interaction and additionally to the management and structure of the law firm itself.
Loading More Content