The American Bar Association (ABA) has released its latest series of annual Legal Technology Survey Reports, providing the industry with some timely snapshots regarding tech usage in the day-to-day practice of law. Divided into five standalone volumes covering Online Research (I), Marketing & Communication Technology (II), Law Office Technology (III), Litigation Technology & E-Discovery (IV), and Technology Basics & Security (V), the reports deliver results from a 275-question survey developed by the ABA’s Legal Technology Resource Center (LTRC), which was administered from October through December 2024. While artificial intelligence continues to dominate discussions about the future of the legal profession—whether as a source of existential dread or more optimistically, as a vessel for transformative innovation—the survey results reveal that adoption of AI by attorneys is still relatively limited to certain functions at the present moment.
By far the most robust data on AI usage that the ABA has collected for 2024 can be found in the volume focusing on Online Research. For the 512 respondents surveyed on this topic, artificial intelligence was defined as “intelligence displayed by machines such as when a machine mimics human cognitive functions like reasoning, learning, or natural language processing.” 30.2% of attorneys indicated that their offices were currently using AI-based technology tools, with reported usage rates running the highest within firms employing 500 or more lawyers at 47.8%. Adoption rates drop off sharply at 29.5% for firms with 10-49 lawyers and continue to fall for firms with 2-9 attorneys (24.1%) and solo practitioners (17.7%).
Of the leading AI-based research tools that firms have already adopted or are seriously considering adopting, the top three platforms cited overall were ChatGPT (52.1%), Thomson Reuters CoCounsel (26.0%), and Lexis+ AI (24.3%). ChatGPT was the clear leader across firms of every size, while the remaining market share fluctuated with respect to the other two most widely used tools and varied depending on firm size. Digging deeper, the following platforms were name-checked only by respondents at firms with fewer than 50 attorneys: Westlaw AI, Co-Pilot, Summize, DocDraft, and Alexi. Conversely, only individuals at firms with 50 or more lawyers cited Paxton AI, Henchman, Blue J Legal, and Robin AI as part of their current or prospective tech stack.
When asked to pick the most important perceived benefit that AI-based technology tools could provide to law firms, “saving time/increasing efficiency” was the leading answer at 54.4%, trailed significantly by “document management/document review” at 9.1% and “reducing costs” at 4.5%. Notably, 17.4% professed that they did not know enough about AI to answer that question. Among a list of major concerns about the implementation and utilization of these tools, accuracy was deemed to be the most pressing, with 74.7% of those surveyed specifically identifying that risk. Reliability was the next most frequently cited concern at 56.3%, followed by data privacy and security at 47.2%, costs of implementation at 22.1%, and the amount of time required to learn such tools at 21.3%.
Given uneven adoption rates across the profession and respondents’ ongoing concerns about accuracy, reliability, and data privacy, it is perhaps no surprise that the majority of attorneys surveyed believe that we are still a few years away from the mainstreaming of AI for legal work. However, 45.3% indicated that watershed moment will arrive within the next three years, as opposed to those who think that AI will become mainstream in the legal profession in 4-5 years (16.3%) or in 6-10 years (6.4%). On the other end of the spectrum, only 12.8% of respondents are of the opinion that AI is already mainstream.
Because lawyers are ethically obligated to keep abreast of changes in technology as part of their duty of competence, staying informed about industry developments is important now more than ever. As such, 60.9% of survey participants overall cited CLE seminars or webinars as a source for learning about how to adapt to new technologies like AI. Publications ranked as the next most-consulted source at 36.7%, followed by legal news (34.3%), other law firms (31.9%), and Google (25.2%). Interestingly, firms with at least 50 but fewer than 100 attorneys were the most likely to utilize a wider range of info sources, particularly other law firms, legal technology consultants, product vendors, and trade shows. Firms employing at least 100 but fewer than 500 lawyers paid the most attention to publications, while firms with 100 or more attorneys were the most apt to seek out relevant tech insights from podcasts.
The survey volume on Litigation Technology & E-Discovery, which features polling data from 443 attorneys, also addressed AI in its findings. Indeed, with the proliferation of machine learning solutions such as predictive coding and technology-assisted review (TAR) starting in the early 2010s, e-discovery stands out as a key area where advancements in artificial intelligence will likely continue to build on previous innovations in the collection, review, and production of electronically stored information (ESI). Of the survey respondents whose firms have been involved in cases requiring the processing or review of ESI, those attorneys indicated that 69.3% of their cases have incorporated early case assessment (ECA) to some degree. When asked to specify which analytics techniques they used for ECA, predictive coding was cited 9.0% of the time.
Turning to the actual review and processing of ESI, the survey provided a list of various techniques and asked respondents which ones they used. Basic keyword searching still came out on top, having been cited 85.3% of the time. However, natural language search also accounted for 64.9% of mentions, followed by other advanced techniques such as concept searching (37.2%), AI-assisted search (27.6%), and predictive coding (22.3%). Drilling down further into the latter, document prioritization was the most widely cited use case at 71.4%, with predictive coding outputs also being conscripted for purposes of data culling (57.1%), review of an opposing party’s production (55.1%), and checking a review team’s work (49.0%). In terms of factors that would prompt the use of predictive coding, “short timeframes/deadlines” were cited 72.9% of the time, followed by “minimum number of documents” (52.1%), “need to get the facts of the case” (43.8%), and “straightforward content types” (25.0%). On the flip side, respondents were also asked to identify which factors were preventing them from using predictive coding and unfamiliarity with the technology was the most frequently attributed blocker at 75.9%, outpacing other considerations such as case size (17.7%) and monetary cost (10.6%).
While survey volumes I and IV provide tangible analyses of AI deployment in the context of online research and e-discovery respectively, there is a conspicuous dearth of AI coverage in the other reports, which likely reflects the current limitations and practicability of the technology. For example, law firm marketing is still largely human-driven with its focus on relationship-building, professional reputation, and regulatory compliance, which means that the adoption of AI remains sporadic, cautious, and often limited by ethical concerns, despite the introduction of tools like chatbots, content generators, and email automation. Likewise, within the broader landscape of law office technology, AI exists as more of a “layer” added onto the existing systems that keep a business operational (e.g., hardware, document management, and cloud services) rather than a core office technology in and of itself. Finally, regarding technology basics and security, AI also inhabits the margins for the time being since those conversations continue to be rooted in traditional, well-established technologies, particularly with respect to foundational infrastructure such as budgets, training systems, backup protocols, and cybersecurity frameworks.
Accordingly, the 2024 Legal Technology Survey Reports paint a nuanced picture of AI adoption within the legal profession. While enthusiasm for artificial intelligence is palpable in specific areas like online research and litigation technology, mainstream integration remains nascent. Misgivings about accuracy, reliability, and data privacy, coupled with uneven adoption rates across firm sizes and a general sense that the technology is still several years from widespread use, highlight the cautious yet growing engagement by legal professionals with AI. As lawyers navigate their ethical duty to understand technological advancements, resources like continuing education programs, trade publications, and consulting with subject matter experts will prove crucial in bridging the knowledge gap and fostering a more comprehensive understanding of AI's evolving role in the practice of law.
