Robert Ambrogi Blog
Nearly seven in 10 legal professionals now use generative AI tools for work — a figure that more than doubled in a single year — but the majority of law firms still lack formal AI policies or training programs, according to the 2026 Legal Industry Report released by 8am, the legal technology company behind LawPay, MyCase, CasePeer and DocketWise.
The report, written by Nicole Black, 8am’s principal legal insight strategist (and a panelist on our Legaltech Week podcast), is based on a survey of more than 1,300 legal professionals conducted between Sept. 19 and Oct. 18, 2025.
Now in its fifth year, the report covers three major topic areas: gen AI adoption and perspectives, access to justice and the rule of law — the latter two topics included for the first time this year.
The Lede: AI Adoption More than Doubles
The headline finding is the significant increase in individual AI use. In 2024, 27% of legal professionals reported using general-purpose gen AI tools for work. By 2025, that figure had risen to 31%. This year, it stands at 69%, meaning adoption more than doubled in the span of a single year.
The tools cited include general-purpose platforms such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google Gemini and Anthropic’s Claude, as well as legal-specific AI applications. The report describes the pace of adoption as “unprecedented” for a profession historically known for caution around new technology.
“Instead of taking decades to reach the majority of legal practitioners, it’s taken three years,” the report says.
The frequency of use has also intensified. Nearly one-third of respondents (28%) said they use gen AI every day, and another 31% use it several times a week. Only 19% reported never using gen AI tools.
Among immigration law practitioners, daily use reached 40%, which the report attributes to the high volume of repetitive document preparation, form automation and multilingual communication tasks common in that practice area.
How Legal Professionals Are Using AI
Among those using general-purpose AI tools, the most common applications were for drafting correspondence (58%), general research (58%, up from 46% last year), brainstorming (54%), and summarizing documents (47%, up from 39% last year). Other uses included drafting documents (43%), drafting document templates (39%), editing documents (37%), generating marketing materials (22%), knowledge management (18%), creating training materials (18%) and analyzing firm data or matters (14%).
For legal-specific AI tools — used by 42% of respondents — the leading applications were legal research (58%), drafting documents (49%), summarizing documents (47%), drafting correspondence (43%), general research (43%), drafting document templates (38%), editing documents (36%), brainstorming (34%), knowledge management (20%), analyzing firm data (16%), creating training materials (13%) and generating marketing materials (12%).
In their comments, survey respondents talked about the practical applications of these tools. One noted AI’s usefulness in improving “the quality and conciseness of writing for specific points within a document,” while another highlighted its value in “rewording or rephrasing awkward sentences.”
Multiple respondents mentioned AI’s role in generating chronologies from a collection of emails and documents, including handwritten notes, as well as supporting timekeeping and document collection and management.
Productivity Benefits
The report found that AI adoption is translating into measurable productivity benefits for legal professionals.
Among those personally using gen AI, 38% said they save one to five hours per week, 14% reported saving six to 10 hours weekly, 5% reported saving 11 to 15 hours, and 4% reported saving 16 or more hours per week.
Beyond raw time savings, 33% of respondents said AI improved the quality of their work even when it produced no efficiency gains in hours saved. Only 6% of those personally using AI reported no productivity benefits at all, a drop from 16% the prior year.
Firm-Level Adoption Lags
Despite greater individual adoption, law firms as institutions are moving more slowly, the report concludes. Only 46% of firms say they have implemented general-purpose AI tools, although that figure rises to 58% among firms with more than 20 lawyers. Adoption of legal-specific AI tools at the firm level stands at 34% — an increase from 21% the year before, but still a minority of firms.
For firms that have adopted legal-specific tools, the top reasons cited were: availability of AI functionality within trusted legal software already in use (52%), confidence that the provider understands the firm’s needs and workflows (47%), confidence that the provider understands the firm’s ethical requirements (46%), and greater trust in the outputs of legal-specific tools compared to general-purpose alternatives (43%).
So what factors are inhibiting firm-wide adoption? Data security concerns were cited as a significant barrier by 46% of respondents, followed by ethical concerns (42%), privilege concerns and lack of trust in results (each 39%).
Notably, cost was a less prominent barrier, with only 24% citing it as a significant concern, though 40% called it a moderate one.
On the question of AI knowledge, the report found an improvement in familiarity. The share of respondents citing lack of knowledge as a significant challenge dropped from 38% to 20% year over year, while those saying it is not an issue at all rose from 25% to 41%.
Training and Policy Gaps
One of the report’s more striking findings concerns the gap between AI adoption and organizational preparation. More than half of respondents (54%) said their firm has provided no training on the responsible use of AI and has no plans to do so. Only 11% said mandatory training was provided for all staff, and another 11% said training was available but optional. Another 17% said their firm had no training currently but planned to add it within 12 months.
On AI policies, the picture is similar. Forty-three percent of respondents said their firm has no formal policy governing AI use and no plans to create one. Another 24% said they are in the process of developing a policy. Only 9% reported having a written and actively enforced AI policy, and another 10% reported an informal or inconsistently enforced policy.
Perhaps one unexpected finding involves how firms prioritize AI training across roles. Paralegals were most frequently identified as a training priority (39%), followed by partners (30%) and associates (26%).
The report observes that prioritizing partners ahead of associates is noteworthy given that partner work is generally more strategic and less tied to the routine, repetitive tasks that AI is designed to streamline, suggesting the prioritization may reflect partners’ influence over firm-wide decision-making.
Other Notable Findings
Among other findings of the report:
- Competitive pressure varies by firm size. The report found a clear divide in how competitive pressure around AI adoption is perceived, based on firm size. Overall, 39% of respondents said they feel no pressure to keep up with competitors’ AI adoption, and 29% described the pressure as minimal. However, among firms with 21 or more lawyers, only 17% reported feeling no pressure at all — suggesting larger firms experience AI adoption as a more competitive dynamic.
- Preparedness falls short. When asked how prepared their firms are to manage the changes AI may bring over the next five years, only 19% said their firm is “very prepared.” About one-third (35%) described their firm as “somewhat prepared,” while 16% said their firm is not prepared for an AI-enabled future.
- Billing practices in the crosshairs. With regard to AI’s potential impact on law firm billing models, nearly half of respondents (approximately 47%) said AI could affect billing practices. Of those, 25% anticipated a reduction in billable hours per matter, and 22% expected greater adoption of fixed-fee or alternative billing arrangements. Another 27% said they expect minimal or no impact on billing models, and 26% were unsure.
- Clients not pushing for change. On client pressure, the report found that clients are not yet pushing firms to change. Only 6% of respondents said clients are requesting AI-related price reductions, and only 3% said clients frequently ask for proof of AI-driven efficiency.
- ROI expectations favor AI. When asked which legal technology investment is most likely to deliver the biggest return on investment over the next three years, AI tools ranked first at 29% overall. Among firms with 21 or more lawyers, that figure rose to 51%. Case management systems ranked second at 25% overall, followed by legal research at 18%, billing and timekeeping at 15%, and client communication tools at 10%.
- Optimism about AI’s impact. Despite concerns around governance and preparedness, most legal professionals expressed optimism about AI’s long-term impact on the profession. Fifty-four percent reported a positive view (23% very optimistic, 31% somewhat optimistic), while 26% remained neutral. Thirteen percent were somewhat pessimistic and 7% were very pessimistic.
- Law firm structure expected to shift. On anticipated changes to firm structure, 41% of respondents expected new AI-specialist or legal technologist roles to be created, 39% predicted a reduction in paralegal or support roles, 23% expected no significant change, 22% predicted an expansion of paralegal or support roles, 21% anticipated a reduction in junior associate positions, and 18% expected greater reliance on contract lawyers or alternative legal service providers.
Access to Justice: A Grim Assessment
For the first time, the report asked legal professionals about access to justice. The results revealed a clear divergence between lawyers and non-lawyers. Among lawyers surveyed, 53% described the current state of access to justice in the United States as poor (35% somewhat poor, 18% very poor). Among non-lawyers, only 35% rated it as less than ideal, and 38% were neutral.
The report attributes lawyers’ more critical view to their closer exposure to the practical limits of the system, including cost, delays and unequal access to representation.
When asked to compare access to justice today against a decade ago, 40% of respondents said it was “about the same,” and 38% said it was somewhat or much worse. Only 22% believed it had improved.
Views on the profession’s own effectiveness in addressing access to justice were modest. Only 8% said the legal profession had been “very effective,” and 38% said “somewhat effective.” Thirty-two percent said “neither effective nor ineffective,” 16% said “somewhat ineffective,” and 6% said “very ineffective.”
When asked what they saw as the barriers to access to justice, those most commonly cited were cost of legal services (72%), court inefficiencies or backlogs (48%), complexity of legal processes (46%), systemic barriers such as language and socioeconomic status (45%), lack of public legal education and awareness (44%), unequal distribution of legal resources across regions (42%), lack of sufficient funding (34%), and shortage of pro bono services (33%).
What Could Improve A2J
Asked what would most improve access to justice, respondents pointed to expanded legal aid and public defender funding (55%), court modernization and efficiency initiatives (51%), simplification of legal processes (50%), increased civic and legal education (47%), greater availability of pro bono services (38%), alternative dispute resolution options (31%), AI tools for lawyers (17%), and AI tools for legal consumers (13%).
On technology’s historical impact, more than three-quarters of respondents said technology had helped bridge access-to-justice gaps over the past decade (28% significantly, 51% somewhat), while only 4% said technology had made the gap worse.
Notably, a strong majority (76%) believe AI has the potential to expand access to justice in the future, with 15% saying it has “very high potential” and 22% saying “high potential.”
The leading ways AI could help, according to respondents, were automating routine legal tasks such as document preparation (53%), expanding access to self-help legal tools and resources (52%), increasing availability of remote and virtual services (51%), streamlining court procedures (47%), improving legal research and efficiency (48%), and reducing the costs of legal services (46%).
However, the report also showed some skepticism as to AI’s use in A2J, with respondents raising concerns about fake citations, overreliance on technology by untrained users, unauthorized practice of law, and courts being “clogged with bogus filings” created by generative AI tools.
Rule of Law Under Threat
Another new topic this year was the rule of law, and the findings were both stark and striking. Among lawyers surveyed, 62% agreed that the rule of law is under threat in the United States, compared to 40% of non-lawyers. Among the 39% of lawyers who strongly agreed, criminal law practitioners held this view at the highest rate (50%).
When asked to describe the current state of the rule of law, 54% of lawyers characterized it as weak, compared to 39% of non-lawyers. When comparing today to a decade ago, 69% of lawyers said the rule of law is weaker, compared to 48% of non-lawyers who held this view.
What are the threats to the rule of law? The top three identified by respondents were corruption or abuse of power (59%), political polarization (51%), and misinformation or disinformation (49%). Other concerns included erosion of judicial independence (32%), decline in public trust in institutions (29%), and inconsistent enforcement of laws (25%).
Asked which institutional areas most need strengthening, lawyers prioritized courts and the judiciary (33%), followed by civic education and public awareness (29%), and legislatures and policy-making (22%). Non-lawyers pointed first to legislatures and policy-making (30%), followed by civic education (24%), and courts and the judiciary (23%).
Non-lawyers were also more likely to select law enforcement and the legal profession itself as needing improvement.
A Need for Trust
Interestinglly, the report found that rule of law concerns are impacting daily practice. Thirty-nine percent of respondents said public trust in the legal system sometimes affects their ability to serve clients, 17% said it often affects their work, and 13% said it always does.
As to direct effects, 29% reported their work was somewhat affected by erosion of the rule of law, and 14% said it was significantly affected. Forty-six percent said it has “not really” affected their work, and 11% said not at all.
When asked what would most strengthen public trust in the rule of law, respondents pointed to stronger accountability for public officials and institutions (55%), consistent enforcement of laws (36%), enhanced civic and legal education (30%), greater transparency in court processes (23%), and improved judicial independence (22%).
Still, despite these concerns about the current state of the rule of law, respondents’ 10-year outlook was relatively measured: 32% expected the rule of law to remain about the same, 25% expected it to be somewhat stronger, and 10% expected it to be much stronger. On the other side, 19% expected it to be somewhat weaker and 14% expected it to be much weaker.
Survey Demographics
The survey was conducted between Sept. 19 and Oct. 18, 2025, and included more than 1,300 legal professionals. Nearly half of respondents identified as law firm partners (47%), followed by paralegals (24%) and administrative or support staff (12%). The remaining respondents included associates, office managers and IT personnel.
Firm sizes skewed heavily toward solo and small practices: 45% were solo practitioners and 38% were from firms with two to five lawyers. Firms with 6–20 lawyers represented 12%, 21–50 lawyers represented 2%, and firms with 51 or more lawyers accounted for 3%.
Geographically, 53% of respondents were based in urban areas, 37% in suburban settings, and 10% in rural areas. Regional representation spanned the Western U.S. (22%), Midwest (19%), Southeast (18%), Northeast (18%), South (17%), Canada (2%), Puerto Rico (1%), and other (3%).
Experience levels were varied: 31% had 21 or more years in the field, 26% had 11–20 years, 26% had 1–5 years, and 17% had 6–10 years. Most respondents (64%) were over the age of 40, while 12% were under 30.
Practice areas included family law (14%), personal injury (12%), immigration (12%), criminal law (9%), civil litigation (7%), trusts and estates (7%), a blend of practice areas (18%), and various others. Gender breakdown was 59% female, 36% male, 1% non-binary or third gender, and 4% prefer not to say.