Technology adoption in the legal profession has always been a mixed bag. Historically, lawyers have been receptive to some innovations, like email, word processing, fax machines, and BlackBerrys, but have been slow to accept others, such as cloud computing, online payments, and video conferencing. It’s not always easy to predict which tools will be viewed favorably, especially since factors including practice areas, geographic location, and even a lawyer’s age can significantly impact perceptions about technology.
That’s why I find practice-area-specific technology data so compelling, especially when it comes to artificial intelligence (AI) adoption. The distinct demands of each practice area shape the rhythm of daily work in a firm. A transactional lawyer’s workflow looks nothing like that of a litigator, and the tools each relies on reflect those differences. The result is that technology adoption varies widely across practice areas, driven by the unique needs and pressures of the work itself. The variance in AI adoption across practice areas is a particularly interesting dataset to analyze, with some practice areas showing much higher rates of AI adoption than others.
Case in point: I recently had the opportunity to review and write about survey data on personal injury lawyers’ (PI) perspectives on and future plans for AI adoption in their firms in the 8am “2005 Legal Industry Report: Personal Injury Insights.” The report was released earlier this month, and in addition to AI adoption data, also includes insights on adoption rates for workflow and financial management tools, evolving office arrangements, remote work technology preferences, and the productivity and profitability gains firms achieve with online billing and payment solutions.
When it comes to AI, the survey revealed that personal injury lawyers are ahead of the curve, with 37% saying they use generative AI in their work compared to 31% of lawyers overall. Despite notable individual use, firmwide adoption is still limited, with only 19% of PI firms formally implementing AI. However, those firms are approaching AI thoughtfully, with 39% preferring to use AI built into trusted tools already in place in the firm, 34% focusing on a vendor’s understanding of their workflows, and 23% saying they trust legal-specific tools more than consumer products. A quarter also pointed to ethical alignment as a top consideration. In other words, PI lawyers are open to AI, but are more likely to prefer trusted legal software vendors that ensure built-in compliance with the profession’s ethical standards.
Personal injury lawyers incorporate AI into their daily work in many different ways. Respondents reported using it for everything from summarizing medical records and depositions to drafting interrogatories, correspondence, and even text messages. They’re also applying it to marketing, case evaluation, and research. Among those using AI tools, the most common tasks reported were drafting correspondence (52%), brainstorming (46%), and drafting documents (39%). Only a small subset of lawyers are heavy users, with 14% relying on AI daily and 16% weekly, but the use cases they identified show just how versatile the technology can be in PI firms, particularly when it comes to repetitive drafting and information-heavy tasks.
Not surprisingly, the data shows that when PI lawyers use AI, efficiency follows. At the firm level, nearly a third of respondents reported at least some efficiency gains, with 4% noting significant improvements and only 1% seeing any decrease. On the individual level, the results are more mixed. About 29% of respondents said they saved one to five hours per week with AI, but the majority haven’t yet experienced noticeable time savings. This suggests that while the potential for AI to improve workflows is clear, most PI lawyers are still in the early stages of figuring out how to translate that promise into consistent, tangible results.
Looking ahead, the data shows that most PI firms are still figuring out their AI timeline. Sixty-two percent said they’re unsure when, or if, they’ll adopt. But among those with a plan, 16% expect to adopt AI within the next year, and another 8% within six months.
For firms already using AI, the goals are clear. Sixty-one percent anticipate increased productivity, 44% expect cost savings, and 36% believe AI will replace some administrative functions. What’s especially interesting is that PI firms are more likely than lawyers overall to expect AI to replace outsourced work (19% vs. 12% overall). Given the volume of routine, repetitive tasks in PI practices, this expectation makes sense and highlights why PI firms may be uniquely positioned to benefit from AI’s potential to reduce costs through outsourcing and expedite case management.
When it comes to adoption challenges, PI lawyers share many of the same concerns as the broader legal community. Thirty-seven percent cited lack of trust in AI results, and another 37% flagged ethical concerns, nearly identical to the numbers for lawyers overall. Waiting for the technology to mature was also common (41%), along with concerns about privilege (31%).
But PI lawyers distinguish themselves in what they hope to achieve with AI tools. More than half (56%) rated summarizing and analyzing medical records as a top priority. Other highly ranked features included summarizing lengthy documents (48%), analyzing multiple documents at once (41%), extracting data from files (39%), translation (38%), and cite-checking (34%). These results show that PI lawyers are focused on the realities of their practice: high volumes of medical records, repetitive drafting, and information-heavy tasks that are well suited to be handled by AI.
Looking ahead, legal technology adoption journeys will continue to be closely aligned with the realities of each practice area. Personal injury lawyers already show a greater willingness to experiment with generative AI, while other specialties may take longer to get on board. Understanding these nuances matters because there’s no one-size-fits-all roadmap for legal technology innovation. In other words, there won’t be one defining moment when “lawyers” embrace AI. Adoption will happen practice by practice, firm by firm — driven less by hype and more by the (sometimes mundane) realities of the work.
Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York attorney and Principal Legal Insight Strategist at 8am, the team behind 8am MyCase, LawPay, CasePeer, and DocketWise. She’s been blogging since 2005, has written a weekly column for the Daily Record since 2007, is the author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers, co-authors Social Media for Lawyers: the Next Frontier, and co-authors Criminal Law in New York. She’s easily distracted by the potential of bright and shiny tech gadgets, along with good food and wine. You can follow her on Twitter at @nikiblack and she can be reached at [email protected].