header-logo header-logo

20 February 2025
Issue: 8106 / Categories: Legal News , Technology , Artificial intelligence , Legal services , Profession
printer mail-detail

Lawyers want firms to move faster on legal tech

Impatience is growing among lawyers as firms drag their feet on tech investment, a report by LexisNexis Legal & Professional has found.

Nearly half (47%) of private practice lawyers surveyed say their firm is slow or very slow at adopting new technology, according to the report, 'Innovating the client experience', published this week. Only 18% say their firm is fast or very fast.

Some 58% say their firm is behind on using data and analytics.

More than one third—35%—admit their firm is too slow at delivering legal work in general.

Meanwhile, 57% expect artificial intelligence (AI) to transform legal research and document review within three years—but will their firms keep up?

As Laura Hodgson, the AI Lead at Linklaters, says in the report: ‘There needs to be a mind shift to recognise that law firms have more to offer than the knowledge in each lawyer’s head: institutional data and new workflows can transform the value provided to clients.’

Sluggish systems are another bugbear: for example, more than half (52%) of private practice lawyers rated their firm as adequate, slow or very slow at conducting legal research. Some 45% said the same when asked about drafting and reviewing legal documents.

These private practice frustrations are reflected by the wish list of corporate counsel.

The survey, of more than 800 legal professionals, asked in-house legal counsel what they need from their external lawyers. Nearly three-quarters (74%) said they need their external team to be cost-effective, 67% need them to be responsive and agile, and 44% need them to offer specialist legal expertise—all of which require an investment in new technology and innovation.

Stuart Greenhill, senior director of segments at LexisNexis UK, said: ‘To remain competitive, firms will need to deliver a superior, data-driven legal service, at the same cost or lower, and at pace—and to keep clients informed of any legal or regulatory developments.

‘Achieving all this without the help of modern technology will be difficult. To secure client relationships, firms will need to invest in a streamlined, data-driven client offering.’

A potential loss of talent is another downside for firms that lag behind on tech. One quarter of all lawyers responding said it would negatively impact their careers if their firm failed to embrace AI, and 11% would consider leaving. At larger firms, these figures were higher—36% and 19%, respectively.

View the full report here.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll