Smart Strategies for Gen AI in Law Firms
Integrating generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) into law firms presents a transformative opportunity to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and client service. However, this integration must be approached thoughtfully, adhering to ethical guidelines and being mindful of potential risks.
Notable Misuses of Gen AI in Law
In one notorious case, a New York attorney faced sanctions after submitting a legal brief that cited non-existent cases generated by ChatGPT. The lawyer admitted to not verifying the authenticity of these citations, leading to a $5,000 fine and a mandate to inform affected clients about the misconduct.
Similarly, a Texas lawyer was fined $2,000 for filing a document containing fictitious citations produced by an AI tool. The court also required the attorney to complete a course on the ethical use of generative AI in legal settings.
These cases underscore the ethical and professional risks associated with unverified reliance on Gen AI outputs. They highlight the necessity for attorneys to exercise due diligence and maintain human oversight when incorporating AI into their practice.
Understanding the American Bar Association’s Guidance on Gen AI in Law
In July 2024, the American Bar Association (ABA) issued Formal Opinion 512, providing its first formal guidance on the use of Gen AI in legal practice. The opinion makes it clear that the ethical responsibilities outlined in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct remain as relevant and enforceable as ever in the context of this emerging technology. This guidance emphasizes that lawyers must fully consider their ethical obligations to ensure Gen AI tools are used responsibly and in a manner that upholds the integrity of the legal profession.
The ABA’s Formal Opinion 512 highlights several key Model Rules that lawyers must heed when integrating Gen AI into their practice:
- Competence (Model Rule 1.1): Lawyers are required to provide competent legal representation, which involves having the requisite legal knowledge, skill, and thorough preparation. When using Gen AI tools, this means understanding both the benefits and risks of the technology. A lawyer must possess sufficient technical competence to evaluate whether a particular Gen AI tool is suitable for the task at hand and ensure it is used effectively. This includes verifying the accuracy of Gen AI outputs, as errors or fabricated citations—commonly referred to as “hallucinations”—can result in serious professional consequences.
- Confidentiality (Model Rule 1.6): Gen AI systems often require inputting sensitive client information, which raises concerns about maintaining confidentiality. Model Rule 1.6 underscores a lawyer’s duty to safeguard all client-related information, regardless of its source. The rule emphasizes that attorneys must ensure the security of any data shared with Gen AI tools and, if there is a lack of protection that risks unauthorized disclosure, must not use such tools without the client’s informed consent.
- Communication (Model Rule 1.4): Effective communication with clients is central to ethical legal practice. Under Model Rule 1.4, lawyers have a fiduciary obligation to inform clients about important developments and to “reasonably consult” with them about the means used to achieve their objectives. In the context of Gen AI, this might mean evaluation whether using the Gen AI tool materially impacts the achievement of client objectives, and if so, informing the client.
- Fees (Model Rule 1.5): Lawyers must ensure their fees and expenses are reasonable. This extends to the use of Gen AI. If, for example, a lawyer uses a Gen AI tool to draft a document in significantly less time than it would take manually, the lawyer can charge for the time spent reviewing and finalizing the document but, unless the client approves, not for the time spent learning how to operate the tool. However, with appropriate disclosure to the client, the lawyer can, for example, charge a higher fee for more efficient work done using Gen AI, compared to the same work done without using Gen AI: in other words, clients getting higher ROI. The key is to keep the client informed and get the client’s approval if you plan to change your fees due to Gen AI.
Formal Opinion 512 goes beyond merely restating ethical rules. It encourages lawyers to approach Gen AI with a blend of caution and innovation, recognizing the potential for technology to enhance efficiency and service delivery while safeguarding professional standards. Lawyers are reminded that their ultimate responsibility is to their clients, not the technology. As new Gen AI tools emerge, the ABA anticipates issuing further guidance to address specific tools and scenarios, ensuring the profession evolves responsibly alongside technological advancements. By providing this structured framework, the ABA reinforces that Gen AI is not a shortcut to bypass ethical diligence but a tool that, when used thoughtfully, can complement and enhance traditional legal practices.
Assessing Firm Needs and Capabilities
Before Gen AI enters into operations, a law firm must thoroughly evaluate current practices, staff readiness, and specific needs. I consulted for a mid-sized firm with just under 100 staff, and will share about this case study as a compelling example of how to leverage surveys and focus groups to build a data-driven integration strategy. The firm’s findings revealed both significant enthusiasm and critical gaps in knowledge and preparedness, offering key insights into how Gen AI can be responsibly and effectively adopted.
We adapted my standardized survey template for law firms on Gen AI to the needs of this firm, and then launched the survey. The customized survey revealed that 75% of attorneys viewed Gen AI as a tool with the potential to improve productivity and efficiency, and 55% expressed eagerness to adopt it actively. However, only 25% of the attorneys – no partners, just associates, mostly younger and more digitally savvy – were already using Gen AI, highlighting a substantial 50% gap between interest and usage. Among those who used Gen AI, its applications varied widely. Attorneys reported leveraging Gen AI primarily for drafting and summarizing legal documents, including motions, memos, and agreements. Additionally, some used it for preliminary legal research to identify potentially relevant case law or to refine and improve the readability and conciseness of their written work.
Despite these benefits, the early adopters faced significant challenges. They needed to learn how to fact-check Gen AI to catch fictitious citations or misrepresentations of case law. One attorney shared a detailed account of testing Gen AI for specific state-level legal queries, only to find that the citations provided were inaccurate to their state. This experience reinforced the need for rigorous human oversight when using Gen AI in legal work, particularly for tasks requiring precision and legal interpretation.
The focus groups provided deeper insights into the concerns and expectations of staff. Junior attorneys voiced apprehension about how Gen AI might impact their professional development, particularly the opportunity to hone essential skills through traditional drafting and research tasks. Senior attorneys, meanwhile, expressed skepticism about the technology’s current limitations but acknowledged its potential to reduce time spent on routine tasks. Across the board, employees emphasized a strong desire for comprehensive training, with 100% of non-partners indicating interest in ethical and legal applications of Gen AI and over 90% expressing enthusiasm for practical training on integrating Gen AI into their workflows.
These discussions also uncovered a clear demand for transparency and collaboration in the integration process. Attorneys were keen to understand how Gen AI would complement their roles without diminishing the value of their expertise. While 75% of respondents were optimistic about the potential efficiency gains, they were equally vocal about the importance of maintaining high professional standards. For instance, they advocated for policies ensuring that any outputs generated by Gen AI undergo careful review and refinement by human attorneys.
The survey highlighted additional nuances in staff expectations and experiences. Attorneys who had experimented with Gen AI noted that it excelled in producing quick, rough drafts for standard documents, which could then be tailored to specific cases. However, they emphasized that its role should remain supportive rather than primary, with human judgment steering its use. Interestingly, no significant difference was found between how Gen AI was used remotely versus in the office, demonstrating flexibility in its application.
The findings also suggested broader institutional needs. While some attorneys praised Gen AI’s ability to handle routine tasks, others pointed out inefficiencies stemming from a lack of standardized best practices. This gap presents an opportunity for the firm to lead with clear policies and targeted training, ensuring that all staff can benefit equally from the technology.
By conducting these surveys and focus groups, the firm identified critical areas for intervention, including the need for robust training programs, ethical guidelines, and strategies to address staff concerns about role displacement. These insights laid the groundwork for a thoughtful, data-driven Gen AI integration strategy that aligned with both the firm’s operational goals and its commitment to professional excellence. This case demonstrates that listening to employees and addressing their specific concerns and aspirations is a key step in successfully integrating transformative technologies like Gen AI.
Providing Training and Education on Gen AI in Law
Successful integration of Gen AI depends on the technical competence and ethical awareness of a firm’s employees. Training and education are therefore essential. Law firms should design programs tailored to different roles within the organization, ensuring that attorneys, paralegals, and administrative staff are equipped to use Gen AI responsibly and effectively. Training should address three core areas: technical functionality, ethical considerations, and workflow adaptation.
Technical training should familiarize employees with the capabilities and limitations of the specific Gen AI tools being implemented. For example, they should learn how to interpret AI-generated outputs, refine prompts for improved results, and detect errors in the system’s responses. Ethical training should highlight issues such as confidentiality, bias, and the necessity of human oversight. Case studies—such as incidents where lawyers faced sanctions for unverified reliance on Gen AI—can underscore the importance of adhering to professional standards. Finally, training should demonstrate how Gen AI fits into existing workflows, clarifying how it complements traditional legal practices and enhances productivity.
Ongoing education is also critical as Gen AI tools evolve. Firms should invest in regular workshops or online modules to keep employees updated on new features, industry developments, and best practices. This commitment to continuous learning ensures that the workforce remains competent and confident in leveraging Gen AI effectively.
Establishing Clear Policies and Oversight for Gen AI in Law
Developing clear policies around the use of Gen AI is critical to maintaining accountability and minimizing risks. These policies should outline acceptable and unacceptable uses of Gen AI, ensuring consistency across the firm. For instance, guidelines might specify tasks where Gen AI is appropriate, such as drafting documents or conducting initial contract reviews, while reserving certain functions for human oversight.
Firms should also establish protocols requiring employees to verify the accuracy of Gen AI outputs before sharing them with clients or courts. A dedicated oversight team or committee can monitor compliance with these policies, assess the effectiveness of the Gen AI tools, and address any issues that arise. Furthermore, data use protocols should be implemented to ensure that sensitive information is handled securely and in compliance with ethical standards.
By combining thorough assessments, robust security measures, comprehensive training, and clear policies, law firms can integrate Gen AI in a way that maximizes its benefits while mitigating potential risks. These foundational steps pave the way for a responsible and effective adoption of this transformative technology.
The integration of Gen AI raises significant concerns about data security and confidentiality, especially in a profession where client information must be safeguarded. Gen AI tools often require processing large volumes of sensitive data, which can introduce vulnerabilities if not properly managed. To address this, firms must implement robust security measures and thoroughly vet potential Gen AI vendors. Questions to consider during vendor evaluations include whether the system uses encryption to protect data, anonymizes client information, and has strict access controls to prevent unauthorized use.
Firms should also explore options to process data locally rather than relying on cloud-based servers, which may present greater risks. In addition, internal protocols should clearly define how sensitive information is handled within Gen AI systems. For example, lawyers might be required to obtain explicit client consent before inputting case details into Gen AI tools. Regular audits of AI outputs and usage can further ensure that confidentiality is upheld. These proactive measures help maintain trust and compliance with both legal and ethical obligations.
Case Study: Overcoming Gen AI Integration Challenges at a Mid-Sized Law Firm
A mid-sized law firm with just over 150 staff members embarked on its journey to integrate Gen AI, drawn by its potential to streamline processes like document review, legal research, and client communication. Despite initial enthusiasm, the firm encountered significant challenges that threatened the project’s success.
The firm’s Gen AI-powered document review system quickly drew criticism from junior associates, legal assistants, and paralegals who found the Gen AI’s outputs rife with errors and lacking nuance. Instead of saving time, employees often had to correct mistakes, leading to frustration and skepticism about the technology’s value. Additionally, fears of job displacement fueled resistance. Although leadership emphasized Gen AI’s role as an assistant, many, particularly junior associates handling initial legal research, perceived the technology as a threat to their roles.
To address these concerns, the firm brought me in as a consultant to help. I began by doing surveys and focus groups to assess concerns and priorities. Next, I organized workshops that clarified Gen AI’s capabilities and limitations. We emphasized that Gen AI would manage repetitive tasks, freeing employees to engage in more complex legal work. Moreover, we underscored the irreplaceable value of human critical thinking, legal interpretation, and client relationships. As a result of these workshops, the firm saw a 30% improvement in employee satisfaction scores related to the use of new technology.
Despite these efforts, the integration faced another hurdle: organizational silos. For instance, the Gen AI system tasked with automating client onboarding required data from multiple departments, but a lack of collaboration led to delays and incomplete outputs. To overcome this, the firm established cross-functional teams to prioritize data sharing and collaboration. This structural adjustment streamlined workflows and enhanced the Gen AI’s performance, ultimately reducing onboarding time for new clients by 40%.
Through education, structural changes, and persistent effort, the firm gradually shifted its culture to embrace Gen AI. Over a 12-month period, the firm reported a 25% reduction in time spent on document review and a 20% increase in overall productivity, at least for the clients who approved the use of Gen AI for their cases. By the end of the integration process, employees recognized Gen AI as not just a tool for efficiency but also a catalyst for innovation and strategic legal work. The journey illuminated that successful Gen AI adoption requires addressing technical issues, managing employee concerns, and fostering a culture of adaptability.
Conclusion
The integration of Gen AI into law firms offers immense potential for transforming operations, from enhancing efficiency to fostering innovation. However, the journey requires thoughtful planning, adherence to ethical guidelines, and proactive management of organizational and employee challenges. By learning from real-world experiences, like the mid-sized law firm that overcame skepticism and structural barriers, firms can unlock Gen AI’s full potential while upholding the profession’s high standards.
Key Take-Away
Gen AI in law presents transformative opportunities but requires careful oversight. Ethical missteps, like fabricated citations, highlight the need for diligence. Firms must prioritize training, clear policies, and human verification to harness… Share on XImage credit: Kaboompics.com/pexels
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky was named “Office Whisperer” by The New York Times for helping leaders overcome frustrations with hybrid work and Generative AI. He serves as the CEO of the future-of-work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts. Dr. Gleb wrote seven best-selling books, and his two most recent ones are Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams and ChatGPT for Thought Leaders and Content Creators: Unlocking the Potential of Generative AI for Innovative and Effective Content Creation. His cutting-edge thought leadership was featured in over 650 articles and 550 interviews in Harvard Business Review, Inc. Magazine, USA Today, CBS News, Fox News, Time, Business Insider, Fortune, The New York Times, and elsewhere. His writing was translated into Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Polish, Korean, French, Vietnamese, German, and other languages. His expertise comes from over 20 years of consulting, coaching, and speaking and training for Fortune 500 companies from Aflac to Xerox. It also comes from over 15 years in academia as a behavioral scientist, with 8 years as a lecturer at UNC-Chapel Hill and 7 years as a professor at Ohio State. A proud Ukrainian American, Dr. Gleb lives in Columbus, Ohio.