header-logo header-logo

25 September 2024
Issue: 8087 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Artificial intelligence , Technology
printer mail-detail

Four out of five adopt AI

Lawyers are embracing the benefits of artificial intelligence (AI), with many rethinking their billing practices as a result, research by LexisNexis has shown

According to the report, ‘Need for speedier legal services sees AI adoption accelerate’, published this week, most lawyers (82%) have either adopted generative AI (41%) or have plans in motion (41%)—nearly four times the number recorded in a previous LexisNexis survey in Summer 2023.

When asked why they would use AI, lawyers highlighted the benefit of being able to deliver work faster, improve client service and gain competitive advantage.

AI is also having a material effect on pricing structures—39% of private practice lawyers expect their firm to adjust billing practices due to AI, up from 18% in January 2024. However, only 17% think AI will end the billable hour model, while 40% believe it will remain and 42% are uncertain about its impact.

Despite adoption rates, 76% of UK legal professionals are concerned about inaccurate or fabricated information from public-access generative AI platforms. However, 72% said they would feel more confident using a generative AI tool grounded in legal content sources with linked citations to verifiable authorities, up from 65% in January 2024.

Stuart Greenhill, senior director of segment management at LexisNexis UK, said: ‘The possibility of delivering work faster has seen widespread adoption, internal integration, and regular use of generative AI across the legal sector.

‘There’s also a strong demand for AI tools that are grounded on reliable legal sources. Yet the impact of this efficiency on the billable hour is becoming a topic of debate. As a result, the number of firms reconsidering pricing models has doubled throughout the course of 2024.’

The LexisNexis report is based on a survey of more than 800 UK and Ireland legal professionals at firms and in-house teams.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll