"Key Findings LexisNexis surveyed 873 legal professionals in the U.K. in January of this year. Like many things with GenAI, the resulting study was long on questions but short on answers. That's not necessarily a criticism. The truth is we just don't know a lot of the answers yet. Which makes the notion of training the trainers perhaps key. Here's some key statistics from the study:"
"65% say legal AI tools allow them to work faster. 72% believe that younger lawyers using GenAI will have trouble developing reasoning and critical thinking skills. 69% worry that new lawyers lack "verification and source-checking skills." Okay. Not terribly surprising although one would think verification and cite-checking skills would be one thing beginning lawyers ought to be able to do. Perhaps the concern is not that they don't have the skills, it's that they won't use them."
"But Wait, There's More Here's one surprising finding: only 29% believe that AI helps them produce higher quality work and only 2% - 2%! - believes AI strengthens their learning. Think about what this suggests: it suggests the main value of AI is that it helps us produce work faster, not necessarily better. And almost all agree that its use doesn't help them learn. Meaning it doesn't help them be better lawyers."
Responses from 873 U.K. legal professionals in January show that 65% say legal AI tools allow them to work faster, 72% believe younger lawyers using GenAI will have trouble developing reasoning and critical thinking skills, and 69% worry that new lawyers lack verification and source‑checking skills. Only 29% believe AI helps produce higher quality work, and only 2% believe AI strengthens learning. The predominant perceived value of AI is increased speed rather than improved quality or professional growth. The data implies prioritizing training for experienced lawyers so they can effectively guide and verify junior lawyers' use of AI.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]