Generative AI tools gain traction among legal practitioners in ANZ

19 Apr 2024News

A recent survey conducted by LexisNexis, a global leader in legal information and analytics, reveals significant adoption of generative AI tools among legal professionals in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ)

The survey, which polled over 560 lawyers and legal professionals, sheds light on the current use of AI tools, perceptions of their impact, and concerns surrounding their adoption.

According to the survey findings, half of the legal professionals surveyed in ANZ have utilised generative AI tools for day-to-day tasks, indicating a growing acceptance of AI technology within the legal industry. While scepticism remains among some practitioners, with concerns regarding accuracy, traceability, and completeness, there is a clear recognition of the potential for generative AI to enhance efficiency and streamline various legal processes.

Generative AI tools are increasingly being recognised for their ability to assist in drafting emails, conducting legal research, improving work quality and efficiency, summarising documents, and understanding legal concepts. Despite scepticism regarding the capability of current generative AI tools to answer legal research queries accurately, the majority of respondents acknowledge the transformative impact of AI on routine tasks.

Greg Dickason, Managing Director, Asia & Pacific at LexisNexis, highlights the eagerness of the legal community to embrace generative AI, citing its potential to expedite legal research, summarisation, and drafting processes. In particular, in-house lawyers are leading the way in adopting AI technology, with over 50% already utilising AI tools in their work.

However, ethical implications regarding the use of generative AI in the practice of law remain a concern for many respondents, with 84% expressing apprehensions on this issue. This underscores the need for clear ethical guidelines and policies to support the responsible implementation and adoption of AI technology.

LexisNexis recently launched the Australian commercial preview of Lexis+ AI™ in February 2024, a generative AI solution aimed at transforming legal work. Grounded in a vast repository of accurate legal content, Lexis+ AI combines generative AI with proprietary search technology to deliver efficient and reliable results. The solution is expected to save Australian lawyers an average of 11 hours per week across various legal activities.

To further support legal professionals in understanding and leveraging AI technology, LexisNexis offers the Lexis+ AI Insider program, providing free access to webinars, thought leadership, and breaking news on the latest AI technologies.

As the legal industry continues to evolve, the adoption of generative AI tools is poised to play a significant role in driving efficiency, reducing costs, and enhancing client services. With proper guidance and oversight, AI technology has the potential to revolutionise legal practice, benefiting both practitioners and clients alike.

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|

The survey, which polled over 560 lawyers and legal professionals, sheds light on the current use of AI tools, perceptions of their impact, and concerns surrounding their adoption.

Employment tribunal cases rising sharply

Recent Ministry of Justice figures reveal a significant increase in open Employment Tribunal cases and challenges faced by employers

SRA updates guidance for litigation supervision

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has enhanced its supervision guidelines to clarify litigation conduct after recent court rulings

Millions of fathers lack parental responsibility

Many fathers may be surprised to learn about their parental responsibility rights and how to secure them

Re Poundstretcher: cross-class cramdown survives even when six landlord classes say no

The Chancery Division sanctions Poundstretcher's restructuring plan despite six dissenting landlord classes, applying the Adler and Petrofac framework.

Ponsford v Sali: a property partnership's messy divorce shows why documentation wins partnership disputes

The Chancery Division takes a pragmatic, evidence based approach to untangling a property partnership built on undocumented cash dealings.

North Somerset District Council v Secretary of State: failing the flood sequential test is not the end of the story

The Planning Court confirms that a failed flood risk sequential test still gets weighed in the planning balance, not treated as an automatic refusal.

Thomas Armstrong (Aggregates) v Housing Secretary: when landfill buries a quarry's right to be reviewed

The Planning Court applies Pilkington and Hillside to find a 1954 quarry permission can no longer be revived under the ROMP regime.

Clerkenwell Lifestyle v HG Construction: be careful what you call "agreed" in extension of time correspondence

The TCC enforces a £955,943 adjudication award after rejecting a contractor's late attempt to recast email exchanges as a binding settlement.

Ward v Donnellan: when both sides lie, "no order for costs" is not a free pass

The Court of Appeal overturns a no order for costs ruling, finding a judge let a dishonest claimant off too lightly.

London Borough of Camden v BW: when a single missing fact can decide a capacity case

The Court of Protection finds an expert's failure to explore one consequence, losing a placement, was enough to undermine his capacity assessment.

Griffiths v Essex County Council: EAT clarifies causation in discrimination remedy awards and sends pension loss back for recalculation

A single act of indirect disability discrimination can ground a full loss of earnings award, even where a later constructive dismissal claim was framed only...