6 GenAI use cases in the legal sector
AI within law firms is not new. Large law firms have been using AI for due diligence, document management and contract review for a while, but GenAI has created new opportunities, which may enhance efficiency, reduce costs and allow lawyers to focus on higher-value tasks.
According to Bloomberg Law (2025) these are some of the tasks that GenAI tools are supporting lawyers in legal practice with.
| Application area | Description |
| Drafting correspondence | Assisting with client emails, letters and internal communications. |
| Legal research | Retrieving and summarising case law, statute, and legal commentary. |
| Summarising | Condensing legal documents, judgments and contracts. |
| Retrieving documents | Analysing legal documents for key terms, risks, consistency and data extraction. |
| Due diligence | Scanning and summarising large volumes of material during transactions. |
| Discovery | Identifying relevant documents in litigation. |
| Negotiating contracts | Suggesting edits and alternatives during contract negotiation and clause comparisons. |
| Preparing case papers | Assembling and drafting case bundles, skeleton arguments and briefings |
| Estate planning | Assisting in drafting wills and trusts |
In addition, Smokeball (2025) says that time tracking, client intake, legal calendaring, knowledge asset search and workflow, matter management, and invoicing and billing are activities that could be supported by GenAI tools. LexisNexis produces a report each year that surveys lawyers to explore the use of AI across the legal sector. In the 2025 report it states:
‘Our survey of 800+ lawyers reveals that law firm leaders must act now. Not just to adopt AI, but to prove its value, optimise its use and measure its impact.
Without clear AI success metrics, firms risk wasted investment, inefficiency and even an exodus of skilled professionals.’
The report is based on 807 responses from the UK, which is a relatively small survey sample size when compared with Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) data on the number of law firms which in February 2025 was 9,178 (SRA, 2025).
The report’s ‘Must act now’ suggests that law firms should act urgently, but the quotes within the report suggest a more pragmatic approach, acknowledging AI’s potential value whilst emphasising the need for careful implementation and clear success criteria.
Large law firms are adopting GenAI tools: Mishcon de Reya has developed deReyAI – an inhouse tool – and are combining it with Legora, Simmons and Simmons use Percy, Linklaters have Laila and some law firms are now using Harvey AI. Harvey AI will be discussed in more detail later in the section.
However, as Laura Hodgson, AI Lead at Linklaters highlights in the LexisNexis (2025) report: ‘Law firms are yet to publish hard data on the efficiency gained through using new AI tools because getting tools to a point of adoption where real value can be measured has been a challenge’.
The Legal Trends for Mid-Sized Law Firms, published by Clio (2025) in the US, found that mid-sized firms were using AI-powered legal research platforms, generic non-legal AI tools, document drafting or automation tools, eDiscovery solutions and predictive legal analytics. Mid-sized law firms were more likely than smaller firms to be using these solutions. Time saving and efficiency were considered to be the biggest drivers for AI adoption.
Other research from the US (Smokeball, 2025) states that firms are cautious about AI adoption because of cost, training and ethical concerns. They also note that smaller firms are behind because of cost and integration barriers.
Research from Macfadyen and Bish (2025) on behalf of the Bar Standards Board has looked at the use of technology to support legal work at the bar. The research found that some barristers were using ‘everyday’ AI tools such as Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT. They found the adoption of technology at the bar was mixed, but that barristers could see the benefits of further adoption. The research highlighted some of the barriers which included the fragmentation and independent practice nature of the bar.
While these new tools may offer benefits, it is important that firms approach any investment with caution, ensuring they have a clear understanding of how the tool will add value and establishing success metrics from the outset.
People’s Panel for Artificial Intelligence
