Misalignment Between AI Use Cases in Law Firms and Internal Legal Requirements

In the rapidly evolving world of business, in-house legal teams are taking a keen interest in Artificial Intelligence (AI) to streamline their processes and unlock new opportunities. A recent survey of 150 general counsels revealed a 9% increase in the use of legal tech, particularly generative AI, compared to last year. However, only 11% have successfully integrated generative AI into their practices.

The survey also highlighted that 35% of in-house legal teams have yet to adopt AI, while 37% are either piloting or rolling out AI tools. This cautious approach is understandable, given the unique challenges and considerations that come with integrating AI into traditional legal processes.

One of the key challenges lies in the lack of knowledge about available AI products and their potential applications. In-house teams often find themselves navigating unfamiliar territory, unsure of how these tools can benefit their bespoke processes. To address this, support in familiarising themselves with AI tools on the market could prove invaluable.

In-house teams are primarily dealing with small volumes or individual documents, and maintaining the capability to do so independently is often beyond their reach. This is where external advisers can offer a fresh perspective, helping teams understand where efficiencies can be made and potential solutions offered.

AI presents an opportunity for in-house legal teams to expand their capabilities, focus on high-value problems, and realise previously hidden commercial opportunities. However, it's important to note that AI tools may not be a one-size-fits-all solution. Law firms presenting AI use cases in litigation and pattern matching, or in large-scale contract remediation, may not meet the needs of in-house legal teams.

Instead, a combination of people and process change could deliver the gains in-house teams are seeking. Suitable training might help teams and other departments recognise the challenges and potential risks of adopting AI, and when and in what circumstances it may not be appropriate to use the technology.

Moreover, the onus is on in-house lawyers to build their AI understanding and upskill. Law firms can help them, but only if they too know where to start. There is a wide array of AI products beyond generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Copilot that could help streamline administrative tasks for in-house teams.

As the legal industry continues to evolve, in-house legal teams are increasingly recognising the potential of AI. Automation and agents to accelerate mundane but time-consuming tasks could save significant time for in-house teams, allowing them to focus on more strategic and high-value tasks.

However, the adoption of AI is a resource-intensive process, with challenges such as privacy concerns, difficulties with seamless integration, budgeting decisions, configuration confusion, and the need for organisational change management and training. It's crucial for in-house legal teams to approach this transition with a strategic mindset, ensuring they are well-prepared for the changes ahead.

In conclusion, the integration of AI into in-house legal teams is a significant shift that offers numerous benefits. With the right approach, support, and understanding, this transition could lead to increased efficiency, improved focus on high-value tasks, and the realisation of previously hidden commercial opportunities.