48% of lawyers in UK firms and 50% of in-house lawyers believe that the legal profession should self-regulate its use of AI, reveals the 2024 Report on the State of the UK Legal Market, a new study by Thomson Reuters.

A smaller percentage of UK lawyers say that the government should regulate their use of AI, with 36% of lawyers in UK firms and 44% of UK in-house lawyers holding that view.

The percentage of UK lawyers who believe that the government should regulate the legal profession’s use of AI is far higher than the 26% of lawyers surveyed in the US and Canada who think the government should regulate AI.

Kriti Sharma, chief product officer for legal tech at Thomson Reuters, says: “When used safely and responsibly, Generative AI has the potential to augment the work of lawyers, helping them to become more productive and efficient. Ultimately this can not only tackle issues such as burnout in the profession, but also help to open up access to legal services, leading to greater access to justice.”

“Regulation plays a critical role in instilling the trust needed to achieve widespread adoption of AI solutions. That said, it’s exciting to also see firms taking clear steps to self-regulate such as investing in AI skills training, and setting robust guidelines, so they can start harnessing its benefits now while also ensuring its safe use.”

Inaccuracy, data security the biggest concerns about AI use for lawyers

The research from Thomson Reuters also shows that inaccuracy and data security are the biggest concerns of lawyers using generative AI,

The report shows that the biggest barriers preventing lawyers from making more use of generative AI in the work are:

• The potential for inaccurate responses (74% of lawyers see this as a concern)
• Concerns about data security (68%)
• Complying with relevant laws and regulations (63%)
• Privacy and confidentiality of information entered into GenAI tools (58%)
• Ensuring that GenAI tools are used ethically and responsibly (50%)
• Becoming too dependent on technology, reducing critical thinking and creativity (50%)

Sharma says: “Understandably, lawyers are extremely careful about taking any risk at all when it comes to the quality of their work. However today, there are specialist, legal specific AI tools available that are founded on trusted legal content, just as professionals are carefully trained for the field, and firms who recognise the value of these tools are likely to find themselves at an advantage over competitors.”

“Adoption of generative AI in the legal profession is gathering pace, both in law firms and among in-house legal departments, as its advantages in improving productivity and efficiency become evident.”

“The business case for AI’s productivity and efficiency improvements mean that every legal professional should be looking at how it can contribute to their work. AI isn’t going to replace lawyers, however those who do use AI-powered tools and processes will have a competitive advantage in the market over those who don’t.”