A comprehensive survey of Washington State Bar Association members reveals a cautious approach to artificial intelligence adoption among legal professionals, with significant gaps in technology knowledge and cybersecurity practices creating potential vulnerabilities across the state’s legal landscape.

The WSBA Technology Survey, conducted from September to October 2024 and published in April 2025, found that only 25% of the state’s lawyers currently use generative AI applications in their practice on a regular basis.

Among those who do use AI, 63% rely on free public versions for basic tasks such as legal research and document drafting, raising questions about data security and professional compliance.

The survey, which received responses from 516 WSBA members with a 5% response rate and a 98% confidence level, uncovered dramatic disparities in technology adoption across different practice settings.

The survey was conducted as part of the work of the WSBA Legal Technology Task Force, which the WSBA created in 2024 to study technology-related opportunities and threats and to determine the WSBA’s role with regard to consumer protection and support of legal professionals.

Divergent Adoption of Gen AI

The survey’s finding that 25% of lawyers regularly use gen AI appears to comport with other recent surveys. In April, I published a comparison of four recent surveys, and, except for one, they all found AI adoption to be roughly in the range of 25-30%.

In the WSBA survey, in-house counsel demonstrated the highest usage rates at 70%, while small and mid-sized firms lagged significantly at just 22%.

Adoption also varied by practice areas, with corporate and in-house practitioners showed adoption rates of 64-68%, compared to family law and civil litigation attorneys who registered only 16-22% usage.

“Survey responses reflect the varied nature of legal practices across Washington, from large in-house counsel teams to solo practitioners and rural firms,” the report said. “This diversity leads to widely differing technology requirements.”

AI Knowledge Gaps

One possible cause of the low rates of gen AI adoption is lawyers’ need for more training. Only 9% of respondents rated their gen AI knowledge as “good” or better, while 36% described it as “fair” and 28% as “poor.” A substantial majority (69%) believe AI use in legal practice will require additional training and skills.

The knowledge gaps appear to follow similar patterns to adoption rates, with corporate and contracts practitioners rating their AI understanding higher than civil litigation practitioners. This disparity extends beyond AI to fundamental cybersecurity practices, where the survey revealed significant vulnerabilities.

Mixed Signals On Cybersecurity

While 79% of survey respondents expressed confidence in their organization’s ability to protect against cybersecurity threats, the data revealed troubling gaps in basic security measures.

Only 68% reported using multi-factor authentication, 37% employed data encryption, and just 34% conducted regular security audits – all considered essential practices by federal agencies and professional organizations.

The confidence-implementation gap proved particularly pronounced among smaller practices and specific practice areas like family law, where actual security measure implementation significantly lagged behind reported confidence levels.

Civil litigation and family law practices showed notably lower adoption rates of basic security tools compared to corporate and larger firms.

Non-AI Technologies

The survey found that tools such as law practice management systems, forms automation and e-discovery platforms are underutilized, particularly in smaller and rural law practices.

“Barriers include cost, lack of training, limited awareness, and a perception of low rate of return on investment,” the survey said.

AI’s Professional Impact

Legal professionals in Washington state displayed ambivalence about AI’s broader implications for their profession and the justice system. While 55% supported the view that technology-driven changes would improve the legal experience compared to recent decades, opinions divided sharply on specific AI impacts.

Approximately 40% disagreed that gen AI would positively impact the court system in terms of efficiency and fairness, while 38% supported this view and 20% remained unsure. Similarly, 41% believed AI would yield favorable results for the legal profession overall, but 40% disagreed and 19% expressed uncertainty.

Access to Justice Concerns

The survey revealed complex attitudes toward public use of AI for legal needs. While 36% of members supported the public using gen AI to meet their own legal requirements, 63% strongly opposed this.

Supporters argued AI could bridge gaps for those unable to afford legal services, particularly in rural or underserved areas. Opponents cited accuracy concerns and argued the general public lacks foundational legal knowledge to properly evaluate AI-generated information.

Lawyers were closely divided on whether AI will narrow the justice gap, with 41% believing it will narrow the gap and 38% disagreeing. Roughly 18% were unsure.

Ethical Uncertainty

A significant finding emerged regarding professional ethics: only 23% of members believe current ethical rules adequately cover gen AI use. Notably, groups with the highest AI adoption rates – in-house counsel – showed the least confidence in existing ethical guidelines, suggesting that practical experience may be highlighting regulatory gaps.

Many respondents called for clear, WSBA-led guidelines, checklists, and potentially approved technologies to ensure responsible AI use in compliance with professional conduct rules.

Technology Training

The survey indicated that legal professionals have a strong appetite for technology education. A substantial 72% of respondents supported adding a technology-related CLE requirement.

For learning about new technologies, members preferred CLEs and hands-on workshops. They also preferred CLEs as a method for keeping up with developments in technology.

Additionally, 45% of members favored WSBA support through technology due diligence guidelines, checklists, and repositories of legal technology tools and resources.

Key Takeaways

Based on its analysis of the survey, the WSBA Technology Task Force developed a list of 12 takeaways:

  1. Technology understanding is a necessity — technology is not an end in itself. “[A]s these technologies become increasingly ubiquitous in society, they are also critically important to understand, both as a part of what happens in our world as the subject of legal issues, disputes, contracts, and harms, and as a part of the toolkit that may be necessary to serve clients effectively.”
  2. WSBA members represent significant diversity in practice types, needs, and technology usage. “The survey supports the need for tailored approaches to technology resources and training. WSBA’s technology support strategy needs to take into account differences in capabilities, supporting a spectrum of experiences, practice area, firm size, and geographic location.”
  3. Diverse needs require diverse solutions. “[T]here is no universal ‘right’ technology. Survey comments suggest that smaller firms and rural practitioners require simpler, cost-effective solutions, while larger organizations may demand sophisticated, scalable, or even bespoke platforms.”
  4. Resources should include ready access and availability to small firms, rural practices, and solo practitioners. “Smaller and rural practices face significant barriers, including financial constraints, limited access to training, and resource gaps.”
  5. Members called out an interest in awareness and capabilities. “[T]he biggest investment for WSBA should not be in technology itself but in the skills, awareness, and capabilities of its members. Practical training programs, clear guidelines, and accessible resources will support members as they navigate technological changes.”
  6. Bridging gaps will help with awareness and competence at key technology skills for legal professionals. “Many respondents, particularly those in small firms, indicated they are overwhelmed by day-to-day practice demands and lack the time and in-house support to explore and implement new tools.”
  7. Trust is fundamental, especially in the legal profession. “Many respondents articulated fears about generative AI replacing lawyers entirely, overshadowing its potential as a tool to support and augment legal work. Respondents expressed a lack of understanding about effective use cases for generative AI, both within their practices and for potential use by the public to meet their own legal needs.”
  8. Generative AI has a dual role for legal professionals — both as a tool in the practice and as an essential area in the subject matter of daily lives, and hence, the practice of law. “Even for those not using generative AI in their practice, understanding its operations and its role is critical for issues like evidence authentication, procedural rules, and overall professional competence.”
  9. Many members are not confident the current Rules of Professional Conduct effectively address AI technologies, and are unsure they know how to spot and resolve ethical considerations in the use of generative AI. “Many emphasized the need for clear, WSBA-led guidelines, checklists, and potentially even approved technologies to ensure AI tools are used responsibly and in compliance with ethical obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
  10. Improved cybersecurity readiness is both urgent and important. “A significant gap exists between members’ confidence in their cybersecurity practices and the reality of their implementation.”
  11. Using technology tools to improve access to justice requires developing public trust in the technology. “For technology to improve access to justice, it must earn the trust of the public, WSBA members, and the Courts.”
  12. WSBA members will need more assistance and support as additional tools and capabilities come on line — WSBA will need to develop robust, sustained capabilities to support members with these changes.

The Task Force says it will use these findings and the underlying survey responses to help guide its priorities and inform its final recommendations

Photo of Bob Ambrogi Bob Ambrogi

Bob is a lawyer, veteran legal journalist, and award-winning blogger and podcaster. In 2011, he was named to the inaugural Fastcase 50, honoring “the law’s smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries and leaders.” Earlier in his career, he was editor-in-chief of several legal publications, including The National Law Journal, and editorial director of ALM’s Litigation Services Division.