Nearly half of UK lawyers favour self-regulation of legal AI

Nearly half of UK lawyers advocate for the legal profession to self-regulate its use of generative AI, according to a new report by Thomson Reuters. The 2024 Report on the State of the UK Legal Market reveals that 48% of lawyers in UK firms and 50% of in-house lawyers support self-regulation over government intervention. In contrast, 36% of lawyers in UK firms and 44% of UK in-house lawyers believe that the government should regulate AI usage in the legal profession.

The inclination towards self-regulation in the UK is notably higher compared to the sentiment in the United States and Canada. Only 26% of lawyers surveyed in these countries think that government regulation of AI is necessary, indicating a significant divergence in opinions between North American and UK legal professionals.

Kriti Sharma, Chief Product Officer for Legal Tech at Thomson Reuters, commented on the findings: "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."

Sharma added that regulation is crucial for building the trust required for widespread adoption of AI solutions. "It's exciting to 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," she stated.

The report underscores significant concerns among lawyers about the use of generative AI, with inaccuracy and data security emerging as primary issues. The potential for inaccurate responses was highlighted by 74% of respondents, while 68% expressed concerns about data security. Additional barriers to the adoption of AI include compliance with relevant laws and regulations (63%), privacy and confidentiality of information entered into AI tools (58%), and the ethical and responsible use of AI (50%). An equivalent percentage of lawyers are apprehensive about becoming overly dependent on technology, which they fear could reduce critical thinking and creativity.

Understanding these concerns, Sharma pointed out that there are already specialised legal-specific AI tools that are built on trusted legal content. "Lawyers are extremely careful about taking any risk when it comes to the quality of their work. However, firms that recognise the value of these specialist tools are likely to gain a competitive advantage," she noted.

Thomson Reuters is also advancing its AI capabilities with the introduction of CoCounsel, a comprehensive AI assistant designed to provide answers to complex legal research questions based on trusted legal information while securing proprietary information.

Despite the concerns, there is a growing acceptance of generative AI within the legal sector. Sharma observed that the adoption of such technology is gaining momentum both in law firms and in-house legal departments due to its evident advantages in improving productivity and efficiency. "The business case for AI's productivity and efficiency improvements means that every legal professional should be looking at how it can contribute to their work. AI isn't going to replace lawyers, but those who do use AI-powered tools and processes will have a competitive edge in the market," she affirmed.

Additional findings from the report indicate that 91% of lawyers using generative AI employ it for document review, 83% for legal research, and 74% for document summarisation. Interestingly, 85% of in-house lawyers believe that generative AI will enable them to bring more work in-house over the next five years, presenting a significant cost-saving opportunity for corporate legal departments.