The evolution of Generative AI (AI) in the legal sector
It has been almost three years since ChatGPT was released. There is no shortage of quantitative research(1) as well as consistent messages in the professional services market through a multitude of networking events which confirm that the market, and legal industry in particular, is embracing AI.
But what does “embracing” actually mean?
The first thing that becomes apparent when reading the latest surveys is that there is a wide range of responses and approaches to every aspect of AI’s appraisal and implementation within the professional services market, including the legal market.
This is not unexpected given that the legal market itself is not homogenous, consisting of in–house lawyers working in corporate organisations and state legal departments, as well as private practice law firms and barristers’ chambers. These entities’ business needs, objectives and approach to innovation will vary significantly depending on their size, culture, practice areas, industry sector and location. Add to this mix a wide range of legal service providers, courts and arbitral institutions, and it becomes apparent that a one–size–fits–all approach to AI is simply not possible. That said, there are some common themes.
The first is that corporates are ahead of professional services firms in implementing AI across their functions. This tends to suggest that in–house legal departments of these corporates are likely to embed this transformative technology into their everyday work faster than private practice lawyers. The second is that there is a meaningful increase in the use of AI by the legal sector overall.
The third is whilst many legal professionals say that they are using ChatGPT and other free AI tools for limited tasks, there is an increase in integrating paid tools (such as Microsoft’s Copilot) for business purposes, or industry–specific AI technologies which cater for specific professional needs. It is clear that this trend is likely to continue.
The fourth is that 2025 marks a transition from overall excitement about the novelty of AI and a principles based approach, towards its use to focus on how to extract value from AI, how to maintain professional standards with the use of AI and how to deal with the impact of AI on the professional services industry.
Whilst a large proportion of contributors to the quantitative research available are large or medium businesses and are US–based, the feedback we see on the ground in the UK is consistent with the observations above.
New AI–related workforce challenges for the legal sector
In order to extract value from AI tools and manage the impact of AI on the current business structures
in the professional industry, an organisation needs to “re–wire” their management policies and business processes. This starts with developing a clear road map for integrating AI tools into your business.
The essential elements of such a road map include:
1. Revisiting the strategic objectives of the business to ensure that the proposed AI tools tie into them and if not, consider what adjustments are required and implementing these adjustments.
2. Addressing the mindset and the culture of the business to create a positive environment for integrating AI tools. In other words, all members of an organisation from junior to senior members and from support staff to the professionals must be given an opportunity to understand the reasons for introducing AI tools, the support the organisation will provide to them during this process and what the integration of AI tools means for their jobs now and in the foreseeable future.
These elements can only be implemented by senior professionals and management within organisations. The rapidly evolving nature of AI tools and their role in the legal sector, as well as the fact that we still remain largely at the embryonic stage of AI integration compared to where we might be in 10 years, place a greater emphasis on the need for strong, committed and visionary leadership within organisations to make the necessary transition effective. This will likely lead to an increase in senior executive and supportive roles with responsibilities focused around AI.
3. Considering how the integration of AI tools will affect the professional skillset of a lawyer. The changes to the skillset are likely to combine the introduction of new skills and change in the emphasis on some skills. New skills will undoubtedly include AI operational literacy which could be achieved through in–house training, outsourced training programmes, as well as adjustments to the educational curriculum at universities and law schools.
The issue of a change in the emphasis on some skills goes to the heart of the debate on how to extract value from AI tools. The rationale behind introducing AI in legal practice is to save time and increase efficiency.
This means that the saved time and the results of AI–powered enhanced research and benchmarking tools can be redirected towards something else which is more useful. There appears to be a growing consensus in the legal industry that this additional utility will not necessarily be represented in cost saving (although this may be achieved in some cases and would be an added benefit), but in lawyers delivering a higher quality end product to their clients which has meaningful benefit to them.
The legal profession primarily requires analytical, critical, and creative, thinking skills, business acumen and interpersonal skills. Many of these skills often become rusty as a result of doing a lot of process driven work, which is a large part of lawyers’ day–to–day activity regardless of seniority. Some might say that the current model of legal practice allows an unhealthy proportion of mediocrity to hide behind document processing. It is no secret clients often become justifiably frustrated with lawyers who simply act as a ‘post box’ and ‘shuffle papers from one desk to the next’.
The expectation from the clients is that the integration of AI tools in the legal sector will push talented lawyers (those who possess and regularly use the relevant skills more than others) forward and free them up from the unnecessary burden of tasks which can be handled by a machine. They would then be able to spend more time on communicating with the client, understanding their needs, thinking about the issue at hand and developing creative strategies. The lawyer’s brain is what the client is prepared to pay for. As someone who has been practising law for over 20 years dealing with complex commercial disputes, I wholeheartedly welcome the prospect of workflow redistribution and increase in the quality standard within the legal profession through AI integration.
However, in expectation of AI–related benefits for clients there lies a long–term challenge. It is difficult to become a super lawyer without spending several years honing your skills by doing a lot of the tasks which may appear boring for a bright junior lawyer, but are in fact an essential component of one’s training. Lawyers learn a lot on the job. An experienced lawyer who has been through this process can now reap the benefits of using AI tools because they can use their instinct, based on many years of acquiring knowledge and experience, to stress–test the work of an AI tool and exercise judgement, discretion, empathy and other skills which are still only attributable to humans.
How does the legal profession teach juniors the essential skills if, with the use of AI tools, they will be able to skip the first few essential steps in their training? In other words, if junior lawyers believe they do not need to know stuff because AI will do it for them, how can they mature into super lawyers? There is no answer to this within the profession yet but the debate is certainly underway. There will have to be changes to the educational and training processes of those who want to become lawyers and such changes might bring about a further qualitative divide within the profession. Time will tell.
4. Considering the need for the creation of new roles
With deeper integration of AI in the legal sector, there is likely to be an increase in the demand for roles in AI compliance and ethics, AI knowledge & training, AI IT service. At least some of these roles are likely to emerge through AI–related upskilling of the existing roles but they may become stand–alone roles depending on the level and speed of AI integration.
With deeper integration of AI in the legal sector, there is likely to be an increase in the demand for roles in AI compliance and ethics, AI knowledge & training, AI IT service. At least some of these roles are likely to emerge through AI–related upskilling of the existing roles but they may become stand–alone roles depending on the level and speed of AI integration.
Conclusion
With the current diverse range of attitudes and practices towards AI in the legal sector, and considering the fact that we are still very much in the early days of the AI revolution, the long–term effects of AI on the legal practice, including the effect on the workforce, will only continue to take shape. There will undoubtedly be a few bumps in the road. However, history teaches us that what looks like innovation today soon becomes part of everyday life. My personal outlook on the role of AI in the legal industry can be aptly described by a comment made by Queen Victoria after her first experience of train travel in June 1842 – “I am quite charmed by this new way of travelling”
Footnotes
[1] “Harnessing GenAI in law” Report by The Global Legal Post in association with LexisNexis in May 2025; “2025 Generative AI in Professional Services Report” by Thomson Reuters Institute; “The State of AI – How organisations are rewiring to capture value” Report by QuantumBlackAI by McKinsey in March 2025; “2025 Trends in Data, AI & Analytics” Market Intelligence Report by S&P Global in December 2024; “Future of Professionals Report – AI-powered technology & the forces shaping professional work” by Thomson Reuters in July 2024
