How Lawyers are Using AI Tools

This is the first of six articles in our series on GenAI use in practice.  We thank our contributing counsel for their responses: Denise Brunsdon (DB), Codie Chisholm (CC) Adam Drew, KC (AD), Katrina Edgerton-McGhan (KEM) Jennifer Hawkins (JH), Jivanya Reddy (JR), Ryan Robertson (RR), Marcus Sixta (MS), Dylan Snowdon (DS), Laura Warner (LW), and Jenna Weinkauf (JW).

Law Matters asked: “How are you Using GenAI in Your Practice?”

JW: I use AI to find precedent clauses for agreements, edit for spelling and grammar, rephrase correspondence in different tones or for different audiences, prepare simple precedents, retype PDFs documents faster than converting the entire document, summarize large documents, create summary charts for large batches of documents and for brainstorming.  AI can be quite helpful in generating potential ideas for brainstorming, I carefully review and prepare work product myself after considering the suggestions and applying my judgment on what are the strongest approaches.

LW: For now, I’m mostly using it to brainstorm, review, summarize, and draft. For these tasks, I believe it can add value, subject to ensuring neutral prompting and very close scrutiny of the output. I’m working on better understanding the “co-work” functions to see whether it makes sense to also use it as something of an executive assistant. The jury is out on that front!

DS: Personally, I am not currently using any GenAI tools in my practice.  I have significant concerns about the quality of work being produced by GenAI tools, and the testing we’ve completed at my firm has not revealed any efficiency that would benefit my clients.  Rather, the time saved conducting legal research or writing is instead spent reviewing the content the AI tool has produced.

Within my firm we are constantly testing tools to identify potential gains to ensure our clients have access to the best and most efficient legal counsel, but at this juncture the tools we have reviewed do not provide any notable benefits while creating significant error risks.  Some of the industry-specific closed systems currently being tested show promise, but none yet provide the combination of security and efficiency gains necessary.

MS: We have discovered many different applications for AI, although it should be noted that all AI use must be implemented cautiously for a variety of reasons.

AI notetakers have proven to be an efficient way to generate meeting notes and summaries. These notetakers are commonly utilized through apps such as Teams and Zoom, but there are also hardware options similar to tape recorders, but much smaller, which include AI software that creates meeting transcripts, and an accurate summary.

We have also found that AI is useful in developing online content. AI can assist with drafting a variety of client facing content, and Website pages can be optimized using AI insights.

We have also used AI to develop slide decks for presentations provided internally and externally to third parties. PowerPoint presentations can be uploaded and optimized using AI, which can also generate fun images to keep an audience engaged. 

We have found AI to be helpful in drafting internal precedents such as intake forms and service agreements. In addition, AI can be used to provide recommendations on additional terms, and to highlight overlooked areas.

RR: We use both general and legal specific GenAI tools to review documents, identify issues, test language, and assist with drafting and revising clauses and correspondence.  A lawyer remains responsible for the analysis and the final work product.   

JR: I use GenAI selectively, mainly as a brainstorming and communication tool. It can help organize ideas, simplify general legal information, and develop educational content for social media. 

JH: Our firm specializes in neutral workplace investigations and dispute resolution. We are in the early stages of introducing lawyer GenAI use as an option for our clients.

With client consent and in a closed and protected environment, we currently use GenAI, in a limited capacity, to summarize evidence for investigations. We have also used it to create themes or categories for assessments with large volumes of information.

We do not use GenAI to assess credibility or to make findings of fact.

KEM: I use closed system AI legal products.  I view AI as a partner that assists in increasing the scope of what I can do with a data set.

Among other things, I use AI on complex matters to locate evidence, identify best drafts for pleading and other materials, to summarize documents in large sets, and to so prepare chronologies. 

I also use it to compare documents including complex reports to identify positions and gaps, particularly where there are competing reports. When preparing for oral argument I run briefs, case law and arguments through it to have a “cold eyes” identification of weaknesses or areas that we haven’t responded to.   

I also use an AI research tool to do first pass searches.

AD: Alberta Crown Prosecutions has a very robust Generative AI Practice Protocol setting guardrails on our use of specific tools. We also have a protected administrative AI tool environment that allows us to work with more sensitive materials.

I am also making use of an AI research assistant to speed up my legal research.

CC: I use GenAI tools primarily for research, both legal and non-legal.

DB: AI helps me canvass our managed knowledge to identify the best precedents, work and rework content, and when I’m done revising, to give me a fresh-eyes assessment for any remaining improvements. AI helps me get from a blank page to a polished product in far less time than before AI. It’s a collaboration partner akin to any other human team member, with the important distinction that it cannot lead or be responsible for work and the judgment behind it.