The 19th century textile workers who protested against the industrial revolution were known as Luddites and popular culture has since adopted the term. Today the word “Luddite” has become synonymous with someone afraid of technological change. Although the original Luddites feared technological advancement, the legal industry’s reluctance to adopt what many individuals see as a brand new tool is different from an all-out refusal to embrace change. Legal experts are not Luddites, and in many ways, law firms’ reluctance to adopt tools like AI comes simply out of practical concern.

Lawyers need to think about issues of privacy, client privilege, and accuracy to perform the duties of their role. While today’s legal experts are different from the Luddites, in many regards  the legal profession shares a similar fear. 

It’s been over a decade since the introduction of technology-assisted-review, or TAR, entered the legal field. TAR is a document review process built around AI and is used in legal discovery, although many lawyers are still unaware that TAR is not only allowable, but encouraged in the courtroom. TAR emerged because the reams of documents used in the discovery process are often so unmanageable that technology became essential to move forward in a cost-effective way. 

When technology is used in the legal field today, the bulk of the work is given to tools like TAR or Boolean search over new forms of generative AI – which passes up on the ability for legal teams to:

• quickly summarize long medical documents or case findings 
• draft templates 
• ultimately cut down on hours of manual work. 

Faster claims lead to better outcomes for patients, and just one change in a workflow can save professionals hours of time. Not to mention AI assisted review is proven to be just as accurate (if not more so) than discovery work done by humans. 

So with all evidence pointing to AI tools, why is AI adoption in law firms falling behind?

Security concerns are a barrier to law firms adopting generative AI

Legal experts often share the same apprehension towards AI that the Luddites faced in their time: concerns rooted in job security, but also in its impact on the safety, and accuracy, of their work. These concerns are heightened now, especially considering the recent legal cases associated with improper or inappropriate use of AI. However, AI as a technology is not new. Formal efforts to recreate the decision making of a legal professional have been in the works since at least 1991, when the first textbook on reimagining the legal field with computer science was released. 

Over 30 years later, the security of AI technology, when this AI is used ethically and in conjunction with human minds, is no longer a concern. 

Skepticism is a barrier to law firms adopting generative AI 

There is still some skepticism surrounding the transparency and reliability of using AI. The Future Ready Lawyer Report by Walters Kluwer found that 87% of legal professionals believe AI improves day to day work, but only 46% say they’re currently using it. However 95% of legal professionals already using AI technology have reported that they save time each week. 

The complexity of AI can be daunting, even for its experts. Many lawyers have not been given the resources to train-in and understand AI, which has hindered its adoption. Education and continuous training can bridge this knowledge gap, as can human checkpoints in various AI processes – such as, for example, having a paralegal review a report with patient records and claims documents sorted and indexed by an AI-based tool before it hits the lawyer’s desk. 

Ethical concerns are a barrier to law firms adopting generative AI

Questions on ethics within the use of AI technology have also been raised, such as biases in algorithms and the absence of human judgment in decision-making – but human judgment shouldn’t be absent just because the team is using AI. In the example above, the hypothetical paralegal is still the one reviewing original documents about a patient’s case. The only difference is that they are not spending time sorting documents by date, removing duplicates from the pile, or indexing what is left. Artificial intelligence’s greatest asset is speed, and an AI platform can work through thousands of pages in a fraction of a human’s time. However, it is still human creativity and problem solving which is required to think creatively and settle the claim. 

Human supervision, regular audits, and clear guidelines are also necessary in mitigating risks. As AI's influence over the economy grows, regulations and laws are being placed to address concerns and the safe choice of AI tool is a compliant one. Security protocols (like HIPAA) have already come into place to protect patient health information (PHI) – which should still be a deciding factor when working with AI. Although cloud-based systems might pose the threat of exposing sensitive information/vulnerability to cyber-attacks, there are robust data security services and measures that can be set in place to avoid cybersecurity risks.

Conclusion

The legal field is evolving; complex cases and rising costs have pushed firms to consider technological alternatives. AI can streamline legal work by automating routine tasks and improving processes for document review. In order to stay competitive in a modern landscape of claims, legal firms must embrace new technologies. This includes incorporating internal systems to educate legal professionals about AI, proactively addressing any ethical concerns by choosing a reliable product, and ensuring data security. As the legal sector evolves, and the claims space along with it, faster processing of documents can lead to faster settlement of claims – and happier clients. 

‍