Chatbots are basic computer programs designed to simulate a conversation with a human user and have become increasingly popular in recent years as a way to provide customer service, answer frequently asked questions, and even provide mental health support. The latest advanced chatbot, called GPT-3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer), uses advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning to generate responses to user inputs in a way that is designed to be exceptionally human-like and natural.

Because the need for low-income individuals’ legal assistance greatly outweighs the number of lawyers who can assist, GPT can step in to help spot users’ legal needs, build out and maintain legal navigators, assist legal services organizations with client in-take, and make court processes and forms easier to navigate.

And because most low-income individuals with legal issues don’t even recognize their problems as legal in nature, GPT can be taught to catch and identify a legal issue as the person seeks advice through a search engine. The person might then be directed to a legal navigator that will share basic legal information to help address their problem. For example, a site might provide a step-by-step guide to getting divorced, explain how to file a claim against an unlawful landlord (after identifying what constitutes unlawful behavior), or provide legal and other support options for domestic violence survivors.

Organizations like the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) and Pro Bono Net have already made great strides in building out content-rich online guides, which will become even more intelligent, accurate, and efficient by using AI.

“Imagine a user being able to ask for help and a chat bot trained from curated, reliable legal information websites providing a plain language explanation with step-by-step guidance,” says Jane Ribadeneyra, the Program Analyst for Technology for LSC. “Obviously, we will need to be cautious about using these new tools and ensure they don’t provide authoritative sounding, but incorrect, information to users. But, I believe those challenges will have solutions and new AI-based technologies we haven’t even imagined are on the horizon.”

Life-changing legal guidance

Indeed, enhanced guidance for those navigating legal issues on their own will be life changing. For those directed to local legal services organizations, for example, GPT can assist with the in-take process to make client qualification, referrals, and communication easier. Many legal aid organizations have limited resources and are unable to serve all of the individuals who seek their assistance. A chatbot could be used to help screen potential clients and gather basic information about their legal issues, allowing legal aid organizations to prioritize their cases and ensure that they are able to serve the most vulnerable populations, while referring out eligible cases for pro bono services.

Legal-focused AI can also assist with legal research and document preparation to resolve cases faster. For example, a chatbot could be programmed to search for relevant legal precedents or statutes and provide summaries of the information it finds. In fact, this technology is already being developed and refined among the legaltech community, and it could also be used to help draft legal documents, such as contracts or pleadings, by providing template language and guiding users through the process of filling in necessary information.

Legal-focused AI can also assist with legal research and document preparation to resolve cases faster.

“We’ve started building bots for the public to access basic legal information using GPT technology,” says Tom Martin, Founder and CEO at LawDroid. “With GPT, we can build these bots 10-times faster than with intent-based natural language systems. GPT-powered chatbots are also much more effective in guiding people quickly to relevant information. It’s funny that systems like Dialogflow, which were state-of-the-art about two months ago, have now been rendered old-fashioned.”

Amanda Brown, Founder and Executive Director of the Lagniappe Law Lab, agrees that things are changing fast and access to justice and legal work processes will be the beneficiaries. “New AI tools like ChatGPT have the capacity to significantly support access to justice when paired with allied professionals like legal navigators,” Brown explains. “Lawyers and legal navigators trained to use these tools will be able to more efficiently provide user-friendly information and do basic legal drafting, leaning on their legal training to ensure accuracy and completeness. As we look ahead in legal education and the development of new delivery models, training on the use of these tools should be an essential component of curriculum development.”

Further, collaboration among legal professionals and those developing AI tools will be crucial to ensuring accuracy, relevancy, and effectiveness.

Chatbots in the courts

Finally, GPT has a place within the nation’s courts to make our legal system more approachable and accessible to those pursuing justice. “Currently, I am building a few different chatbots for different workflows (criminal, civil, and drug court),” says Judge Scott U. Schlegel of the 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. “Each is being built to help court users better navigate the justice system.”

Judge Schlegel explains his chatbots have the potential to scale the court’s limited resources, provide necessary information to lawyers and litigants at the right time, and help set expectations, which is extremely important. “We also hope to integrate these chatbots with the clerk of court’s system so that court users can get case specific information and a database of Louisiana laws,” he adds. “The sky is the limit with all of the potential use cases,”

One potential limitation of using GPT to increase access to justice is the risk of providing incorrect or misleading information, of course. While the bots are designed to be highly accurate and generate responses that are similar to those from a human, they will need additional training and may occasionally provide incorrect or outdated information. The chatbots should be regularly reviewed and updated to ensure they are providing accurate and up-to-date information — a potentially complicated task.

Despite those challenges, new technologies like GPT chatbots have significant potential to increase access to justice for individuals who are currently underserved by our legal system. By issue spotting, providing basic legal guidance and documents, assisting with legal services in-take processes, and helping court processes, GPT would make it easier for individuals in need to understand and navigate their legal issues. While AI won’t replace lawyers anytime soon, it is a critical tool to narrow our justice gap and should be used responsibly.

A recent survey has found that those in corporate law departments are largely optimistic about the potential for generative AI and programs such as ChatGPT in performing both legal and non-legal work.

In total, 82% of respondents say generative AI can be applied to legal work, while 54% believe it should be applied to legal work, roughly the same rate as their law firm counterparts. Similarly, 70% believe these tools should be applied to non-legal work as well.

The survey, conducted in late April by the Thomson Reuters Institute, gathered insight from more than 580 respondent lawyers and legal professionals within corporate law departments in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. The survey forms the basis of a new report, ChatGPT and Generative AI within Corporate Law Departments, which takes a deep look at the evolving attitudes towards generative AI and ChatGPT within departments, measuring awareness and adoption of the technology as well as lawyers’ views on its potential risks.

The report — which pairs with an earlier report done by the Thomson Reuters Institute, ChatGPT and Generative AI within Law Firms — also reveals several key findings that show not only how corporate law departments are approaching their ChatGPT and generative AI plans, but how those plans differ from law firms, and what legal departments want out their law firm partners’ generative AI use. These findings include:

Higher awareness and willingness to apply — Corporate law department leaders surveyed generally had high awareness of ChatGPT and generative AI, with 95% of respondents saying they had either heard of or read about ChatGPT or generative AI. That is higher than the awareness among law firm leaders, of whom 91% said they had either heard of or read about ChatGPT or generative AI.

More comfort with using the technologies — Only a small number of corporate law departments (11%) said they are already using or planning to use ChatGPT and generative AI in their legal operations; however, this was again significantly higher compared to use or planned use by law firm respondents (5%). Among those respondents who said they’re already using or planning to use ChatGPT and generative AI in their operations, 19% of both corporate legal and law firm respondents say they are already using these technologies on a wide-scale basis.

Acknowledgement of the risks involved — Three-quarters of corporate law professionals say they have risk concerns surrounding use of ChatGPT and generative AI, mostly in areas of accuracy, privacy, confidentiality, and security. Further, about one-quarter of respondents said they have received warnings from their companies about ChatGPT and generative AI usage for their work, but only 10% reported ChatGPT and generative AI had been banned at their companies. Many of the objections over AI use in legal work acknowledged the importance of human touch and expertise in the legal profession, the uniqueness and complexity of legal issues, the need for supervision and review of AI-generated materials, as well as ethical considerations and the perception by some that the technology may not be fully ready yet for appropriate use in legal.

Even with the potential risks, general counsel and others are actively preparing for a potentially major change in how work is done. “We’re not shutting our eyes to this,” says one senior legal officer at a large corporation. “We’re working on a solution that would work for us.”

And awareness of generative AI’s potential is likely to spur acceptance and usage, even in the usually reticent legal profession. “Before ChatGPT, technological advancement in legal software has been pretty incremental, but now it appears poised to take big steps toward something significant,” says Gunter Eren, General Counsel in Research & Development at the Business Innovation Centre of Konica Minolta in the U.K.

You can download a copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s new report, ChatGPT & Generative AI within Corporate Law Departments, here.

Among the other respondents, however, the feeling was not necessarily distaste for generative AI, although some of that did exist. Instead, many are still simply unsure exactly what generative AI is or what it can do. Yet, considering the pace at which law firms have adopted technology previously, this is an understandable feeling given that the public release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT occurred only in November 2022.

Overall, the report found uncertainty across the board among law firm respondents: 25% said they did not know whether generative AI should be applied to legal work, and 21% did not know whether it should be applied to non-legal work. These feelings even extended to other forms of AI outside of generative AI/ChatGPT, as 24% did not know whether their firm uses AI outside of the generative context.

Jason Adaska, Director of the Innovation Lab at Holland & Hart, has a team of data scientists working on potential generative AI applications for the firm. Adaska says that because generative AI has appeared on the scene so quickly, there is “an increasing bifurcation in the conversations that I have” between people interested in using it and those unaware of its existence.

“Some people, they’ve seen it in the media, they’re kind of up to date with it,” he adds. “They may not come from a technology perspective, but at least they know about the conversation. Even in March I had some conversations with people who say, ‘I didn’t catch that. What is ChatGPT, what is this word you’re throwing at me?’”

Discovering how generative AI & ChatGPT can help

Similarly, Arsen Shirokov, National Director, Information Technology at McMillan, has already begun having conversations with internal stakeholders and external vendors about ways generative AI can be applied in his firm. A sticking point he’s run into, however, is that unlike previous legal technologies that have had a distinct use case, generative AI’s applications are so expansive that they can be hard to nail down.

“Almost everywhere else in technology, you say what this product is: this is an IG solution, this is a business workflow solution, this is an architecture solution, right? …With generative AI, I think we haven’t figured that out yet,” Shirokov says. “We don’t necessarily know which generative AI solutions are for research, for example. Take ChatGPT: It can also draft things for you, but for review, you cannot feed the bunch of documents to ChatGPT yet and just say, review this.”

Until those questions are answered, many lawyers also remain unsure of how their firms will handle generative AI on a wider scale. Our report found that 36% of respondents said they did not know whether their law firm had risk concerns around generative AI usage. Additionally, 19% did not know whether their firm had issued warnings against unauthorized generative AI use; and 22% did not know whether their firm had banned unauthorized generative AI use outright.

“How are we going to get people comfortable not just with the technology, but with the fact that they are interacting with a machine, and yet it doesn’t feel like you’re interacting with a machine?”

Even those respondents who reported their firm had underlying risk concerns over these advanced technologies counted a lack of technological maturity as one of those barriers. “A lack of understanding of the underlying risks,” wrote one respondent when asked why their firm had concerns around generative AI.

“Lack of insight/ability to control algorithms, data sets, and assumptions/biases of generated results. Lack of disclosure of disclaimers, boundaries, and assumptions when results return. Lack of ability to assess confidence in generated results,” wrote another.

As a result, for those law firms actively considering embracing generative AI — the report found 40% of firms were at least considering its use — encouraging adoption may be as much of a knowledge and informational issue as a technological issue. To that end, Jessica Lipson, Partner and Co-Chair of the Technology, Data & IP Department at Morrison Cohen, said her firm has been treating communication as a “high strategic issue” in potentially adopting generative AI technologies. “How are we going to get people comfortable not just with the technology, but with the fact that they are interacting with a machine, and yet it doesn’t feel like you’re interacting with a machine?” Lipson asks.

Part of the answer may take a cue from the 1989 film Field of Dreams: “If you build it, they will come.”

Holland & Hart’s Adaska says he’s gained interest in his team’s generative AI efforts by simply letting attorneys play around with the tool themselves. “I think that’s the story of the last few months in this,” Adaska adds. “A number of people who maybe would have either not paid attention or have been skeptical are being won over by actually trying things they thought weren’t possible and being pleasantly surprised.”

However, identifying the answers to that problem remains much tougher. Those at Stanford Law School’s 2023 CodeX FutureLaw conference presented some ideas — but ultimately, they said, those solutions may need to be technological, regulatory, and even psychological in nature.

The problem with tech

A session at CodeX, titled A New Era in Court Process Automation, brought together leaders from a number of technology companies and governmental organizations who were looking to make access to court systems easier. For panelist George Simons, whose company SoloSuit aims to help those facing debt lawsuits file in court more easily, the issue to tackle is twofold. First, is the need to address a court system that is bad at notifying parties of developments in a lawsuit. In many cases, those facing debt suits don’t even realize there is a complaint against them until they’ve already lost due to never actually seeing the complaint in time, Simons noted.

Then, even if they are notified of the complaint, a non-unified court system makes even submitting their response difficult. And scaling up a technology business to automate the debt form filing process is nearly impossible, Simons explained, because each court has different forms to fill out, and often the bureaucracy of the court moves slowly.

“To deal with the court, we have to print everything on paper and file it with the court by USPS,” Simons said. “Then once we send the file to the court, it goes dark.”

Panelist Noella Sudbury, Founder and CEO of Rasa Public Benefit Corporation, has found the same in her start-up that works to allow individuals to expunge their criminal records. Although 20 million to 30 million people in the U.S. are eligible for some sort of record clearance, only 10% actually make it through the process, Sudbury explained. Technology can help to a point, she added, but “we can’t speed up the government. …Very quickly it becomes very, very confusing to try and get through this process.”

One of the legal technology companies that has been able to scale up more quickly is Rocket Lawyer, but CEO Charley Moore, another panelist, said the main reason is specifically because the company deals with a lot of forms that don’t need to be filed to the government — contracts and personal legal documents among them. But when Rocket Lawyer has ventured into forms that necessitate dealing with government agencies, like submitting incorporation filings, “that is a more costly business… every time the government gets involved, the cost goes up and up and up.”

Finding the difference

Panelists noted that changing this problem isn’t a “red or blue [state] issue,” as Stanford Fellow Chandler put it. However, starting change is a matter of strong leadership, as well as changing mindsets in 50 different U.S. states that all have their own way of operating.

Moore agreed. “I don’t see much opportunity in this political climate for legislative solutions,” given that courts usually aren’t a pressing issue for legislators, he said., adding, however, he does see some progress in form standardization in states such as Nevada. Moore also noted the U.S. Supreme Court could even step in and make rules, similar to its actions around attorney advertising, though this area is unlikely to be a high priority right now.

Ultimately, where the most hope may live is in states such as Utah and Arizona that have changed their unauthorized practice of law rules to allow technology companies to implement new solutions. The experience of those states has shown “that it does take leadership,” Moore noted. “It’s really in the interest of local courts and local agencies to really adopt these reforms, because it’s going to make their forms more accessible and lower the costs administratively.”

“We have a system of Balkanized courts and not scalable solutions that result in court inefficiency.”

Panelist Grace Spulak, Senior Court Management Consultant at the National Center for State Courts, noted there are already initiatives underway to get courts more motivated to make these changes. She noted that at their core, courts are not averse to technology. “Courts want to administer justice, and they want to work more efficiently and effectively,” she said, adding that it’s a matter of convincing courts that their actions will actually positively affect this change.

Sudbury also noted that it’s helpful to humanize the population that will be helped by these changes. “When I look at the national conversation,” she said, “it feels very abstract.” But in actuality, the criminal expungement world is very personal. She told the story of one typical client who was looking to turn his life around while in a substance addiction recovery program and wanted to clear his record. The problem was he makes $15 an hour at his job — too much for legal aid, but far too little to pay for a lawyer.

“I think if people see the people behind these stories, those are the types of things that are really going to move the needle and prompt people to take action and change what the law can be,” Sudbury explained. “I think we need more examples like this to emotionally impact the leaders in this area.”

As new technologies create unique solutions to the access-to-justice issue, more companies like SoloSuit, Rasa, and Rocket Lawyer will continue to emerge. But increasingly, the main barrier in their way will not be a technological one, but rather a need to find a way to actually impact a court system that has long seemed stagnant.

“The technology is here already,” Moore said. “What isn’t there is the political will to make use of those tools.”

In fact, law firms that use ALSPs are doing so for more than 40% of their intellectual property management work and more than 20% of their legal drafting and legal research, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recently published ALSP 2023 Report. Corporate law departments that use ALSPs, meanwhile, are tapping them for more than one-third of their regulatory risk & compliance matters and contract management tasks.

Yet, despite ALSPs’ rising prominence, the report also reveals that law firms and corporate law departments alike don’t yet fully trust ALSPs. Almost two-thirds (62%) of law firms indicated that concerns about quality affects their willingness to use ALSPs; and 46% of corporate clients said the same. Meanwhile, more than half of law firms had concerns about turning over confidential client information to ALSPs, and firms also felt their traditional business model was challenged by ALSPs’ use of technology. Further, 38% of corporate law departments indicated they would rather have their outside law firms deal with ALSPs rather than deal with ALSPs directly themselves.

So where is the disconnect? At a recent Legalweek session, Changing Nature of Legal Practice: Impact of ALSPs, Tech Companies, and the Big 4, panelists explored not only how ALSPs are increasingly entering legal matters, but what they will need to do to keep their place at the table. No surprisingly, it all starts with the relationship, said panelist Vedika Mehera, Director of Orrick Labs at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. “We can’t overemphasize how important trust is, and it begins with constant communication,” Mehera said, adding that many view this as constant communication of problems.

“We don’t get to fail more than once [in the legal industry],” she explained, noting that there is a flip side to that — proactively explaining how ALSPs can help. “When you have a success, share it. When you have a challenge that you’re running up against, communicate it. …I think that really helps build trust.”

Showing clients the value

Of course, this can mean communicating positive return-on-investment for a matter as well. However, as panelist David O’Hara, Director of Legal Business Solutions at Big 4 firm PwC, added: “It’s not just about the dollars and cents.”

O’Hara noted that PwC has worked to bring in diverse teams to matters, in some cases pairing legal experts with IT, bringing in regulatory experts into a cross-border matter, or even identifying internal skills “that helps us build trust with clients, to say we have a world of resources” to tackle different jobs.

“The more [we] can ease that [concern] and create different ways of working for them, that’s the intangible value we always need to remember,” he noted.

Of course, this can be easier said than done. Often, clients may not even know the different jobs that an ALSP can do. Indeed, 33% of global corporations within the ALSP Report said that not being aware of services or where to find them was a factor in not using ALSPs.

To help solve for this, O’Hara recommended approaching the problem with more than just a technology solution. “Attorneys are going to forever be skeptical of technology, and that’s good,” he explained, adding that by centering the human and casting the ALSP’s offerings as part of a wider team’s efforts, ALSPs can help ease client fears of trying something new.

“We can’t overemphasize how important trust is, and it begins with constant communication.”

“As we integrate all of these different elements, that’s where I’ve seen the most success,” O’Hara said. “I’ve seen that be the best delivery of the best combination and use case for how to leverage these teams.”

Mehera added that identifying the client’s culture is important when approaching those conversations — as is reflecting how a team with diverse skills can supplement that culture. For example, some corporate law departments may be more tech-savvy than others. “All of these clients are using AI in their business. Can we be reflective of that as well?” Mehera asked.

Finally, O’Hara noted that it’s important to be realistic when talking about what an ALSP can do. “We realize that driving a lot of these changes takes an investment. We’re pragmatic” and not guaranteeing immediate return-on-investment if it’s a long-term project, he explained.

O’Hara also said that rather than looking for new tools, lawyers often take the mentality that “we need more hammers to break more rocks.” However, for those that take the plunge to try a new path, ALSPs can supercharge a matter — a value that law firms and corporate law departments alike are beginning to see. More than two-thirds of law firms (69%), in fact, believed that using ALSPs can help them scale and expand their own business.

“I think there’s all sorts of different ways that you can partner with vendors and providers in the industry to accomplish what you need to,” Mehera added. “I think it’s in our best interest that everyone succeeds. If you succeed, we succeed.”

Not surprisingly, strong opinions arose, not only about the potential sea-change in the delivery, pricing, and execution of legal services that the wider use of generative AI could bring, but also about the unknown risks that such usage could pose.

In fact, a recent survey of law firm lawyers illustrated this dichotomy well — a large majority (82%) of those surveyed said they believe that ChatGPT and generative AI can be readily applied to legal work; and a slightly smaller majority (51%) said that ChatGPT and generative AI should be applied to legal work.

The survey, conducted in late-March by the Thomson Reuters Institute, gathered insight from more than 440 respondent lawyers at large and midsize law firms in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. The survey forms the basis of a new report, ChatGPT & Generative AI within Law Firms, which takes a deep look at the evolving attitudes towards generative AI and ChatGPT within law firms, measuring awareness and adoption of the technology as well as lawyers’ views on its potential risks.

The report also reveals several key findings that deserve special attention from law firm leaders and other legal professionals as ChatGPT and generative AI evolve from concept to reality for the vast majority of the legal industry participants. These findings include:

• • • Attitudes are evolving around this technology — While almost everybody we surveyed had heard of ChatGPT and generative AI, actual use among law firms thus far was quite limited, with just 3% of respondents saying they are actually using generative AI right now. Of course, a much larger portion (34%) said their firm was still considering whether or not to use generative AI for legal operations.
    • Firms are taking a cautiously proactive approach — About 15% of respondents said their firms have warned employees against unauthorized generative AI use at work, and 6% said their firms have banned unauthorized usage outright, indicating that many lawyers clearly understand the importance of applying guardrails to generative AI use. In fact, all those interviewed noted that they do not fully trust generative AI tools — and particularly the public-facing ChatGPT tool — with confidential client data. Yet, even as this mistrust exists, our research shows that attitudes are changing, and potential use cases are being explored by many law firms.
    • There’s a growing awareness of the risks — A large portion of respondents had concerns with use of ChatGPT and generative AI at work — 62%, which included 80% of partners or managing partners. Further, many of the concerns voiced in our survey seemed to revolve around the technology’s accuracy and security, most specifically about how law firms’ concerns of privacy and client confidentiality will be addressed. Still, many legal industry observers (and many of our respondents) know that by any measure, we are still early in the game for generative AI and ChatGPTs. It is expected that time and experimentation will make users more comfortable with these tools, and a day will come when generative AI and ChatGPT is in as common use within law firms as online legal research and electronic contract signing are now.

Yet, whichever side of the debate over this fledgling technology a lawyer might find themselves, one idea the report makes clear — whatever the level of use of ChatGPT and generative AI eventually reaches among law firms and throughout legal, this technology has the potential to change the industry. And even in its infancy, the growing acceptance of ChatGPT and generative AI is being seen as a watershed moment.

“Within the next six months everybody at the firm will be using it,” said Charlotte Woolven-Brown, Head of Employment and a Partner at law firm Sternberg Reed in the United Kingdom. “And there’s absolutely no way you’re going to stop that, because people will get more in tune with what’s happening and how quickly this technology is developing.”

You can download a copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s new report, ChatGPT & Generative AI within Law Firms, by filling out the form below:

As entrepreneurs consider how to best sustain new justice tech projects, we examine four proven models: non-profit organizations, for-profit ventures, fellowship programs, and law firm subsidiaries, and suggest ways to make each of them successful.

Non-profit organizations

The non-profit model is a natural fit for justice tech organizations because of its focus on impact over revenue. This model also aligns well with the goals of many foundations that donate to justice-related causes, and the established processes for applying to such funding opportunities can provide a clear roadmap for new founders. As a result, getting started with a non-profit may be easier than with other structures.

For example, Upsolve and ImmigrationHelp are two newer justice tech non-profits — Upsolve helps individuals file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy; and ImmigrationHelp helps immigrants file for programs that allow foreign citizens to temporarily live and work in the U.S, such as DACA and TPS, all for free.

Jonathan Petts, co-founder of both organizations, explains that he decided to create non-profits “because we wanted to focus exclusively on impact — helping the most low-income Americans get out of poverty by accessing their legal rights. Venture capital introduces a new motivation — profit — that can distract from scaling impact.” The organizations’ backers include the Legal Services Corporation, the Robin Hood Foundation, and the Stand Together Trust.

In our new column, NextGen Justice Tech, by Kristen Sonday, we will take a look at the people, trends, and technology shaping the future of access to justice.

“We approached our funders by warm introductions from mutual friends,” Petts says. “At the end of the day, people fund people. So, it’s all about building relationships.” And because non-profit funders will often tie their grants to very specific programs or product outcomes, often over limited time horizons, articulating return on impact and relevance to urgent legal issues is essential to securing recurring funding, he adds.

For-profit ventures

In order to achieve sustainability without relying on grant funding, a founder might want to pursue a for-profit model. Companies that raise capital from funds or angel investors can quickly and efficiently scale their businesses; and by tying revenue to client value, they can reinvest funds into their most impactful products.

For example, Rasa is a new justice tech company whose mission is to make the process of clearing a criminal record simple and affordable. “One-in-three Americans have a criminal record, and to tackle it properly and at scale, I quickly learned that I would need high quality tech talent and access to capital,” explains Noella Sudbury, CEO of Rasa, adding that she chose a for-profit model because she “felt limited by the structure of non-profits and inflexibility of grants. In addition, tech is a competitive field, and I also found it hard to find high-quality tech talent willing to work for a non-profit salary.”

Another justice tech for-profit, Formally, founded by Amelie Vavrovsky, helps people navigate immigration processes. In addition to scalability, Vavrovsky explains that she chose a for-profit model because “it’s important for me to create rights-based relationships with our customers, even those who don’t directly pay us. I have noticed that non-profits have beneficiaries, whereas companies have customers — which is inherently a different power dynamic.”

Vavrovsky adds that at Formally, the company treats everyone as a customer. “When something on our platform does not work for them, they let us know and we fix it,” she explains. “Establishing a rights-based relationship with our customers allows us to iterate quickly and build something truly valuable.”

While venture capital funding can be limited during economic downturns, justice tech is gaining recognition as an investment category, making it an opportune time to approach investors. However, funds will expect a financial return on their investment, so it’s important to have a sound business model, growth plan, and team in place so you can demonstrate a path to success, despite economic conditions.

Fellowship programs

Another way to minimize the risk of a justice tech project is to choose a fellowship model like the Judicial Innovation Fellowship, which is described as a “pipeline that brings experienced technologists, designers, data scientists, and product managers to state, local, territorial, and tribal courts to innovate justice in America.” Co-founded by legal technologist Jason Tashea, the organization’s Fellows work with courts for a limited time to build scalable, replicable, and open-source projects that increase court transparency, efficiency, and equity. And because one of Tashea’s co-founders is Tanina Rostain, a professor at Georgetown Law, they were able to house the program within the school’s Institute for Technology Law & Policy.

“Fellowships provide this perfect opportunity to inject new talent and perspective into organizations that are hungry for it,” says Tashea. “We’ve seen this model successfully deployed in executive and legislative branches in the U.S., but never the courts. Suffering from the same problems legislative and executive branch offices experience — short staffs and budgets, not to mention legacy technical systems — the courts are primed to benefit from the infusion of technical talent and support in the same way.”

While Fellowships are often structured as non-profits and do compete for funding from similar grantors, their connection to a host organization can be appealing as an impact multiplier.

Law firm subsidiaries

Finally, a rarer justice tech structure is a law firm subsidiary, such as Wilson Sonsini’s SixFifty. Its founders, Kimball Parker and Marie Kulbeth, started LawX in 2017 as a legal design lab at Brigham Young University Law to build software tools for individuals who couldn’t afford attorneys. The LawX lab focused on creating a tech solution for debt collection in Utah, a common issue. The resulting tool, SoloSuit, was highly successful and attracted national media attention, ultimately leading to an invitation from Wilson Sonsini to create SixFifty, a technology subsidiary. SixFifty’s mission is to make the law affordable and easily accessible for individuals, and it offers top-tier automated legal documents to businesses on a subscription basis, while providing free legal help to people in need through its pro bono tools for issues such as housing, debt, immigration, estate planning, name changes, and gender marker corrections.

When deciding on a structure for a new justice tech organization, it’s important to consider trade-offs related to funding access, practical business and impact models, and how the founders think about long-term sustainability.

“Not all companies are a good fit for VC funding, but it makes sense if you’re trying to build something truly scalable, quickly — and that’s why it was a good fit for us,” says Vavrovsky. “As with everything, there are trade-offs. This is why it’s especially important for founders to carefully select their partners.”

Without a doubt, today’s smartphones have significant computing power. The smartphone in your pocket has many times the processing power of the computers that landed man on the Moon. In fact, today’s iPhones are so powerful that it has been suggested that a single iPhone could be used to guide more than 120 million Apollo-era spacecraft to the moon — all at the same time.

Overall, while smartphones can be powerful tools that enable people to stay connected and productive, it is important to be aware of the potential downsides and how to use these devices responsibly. This may involve setting limits on employees’ phone usage, securing personal information, and taking steps to protect privacy.

Smartphones can be packed with too many features that might not be necessary for the workplace. Yet, smartphones are designed to be versatile, and certain  features and apps often are critical to the functionality of a modern smartphone.

A recent poll showed that about 80% of all smartphone users only use between 8 and 12 apps on a consistent basis, typically for tasks like email, messaging, social networking, news, games, weather, and photography. But only about 10% to 15% of users said they also use smartphones for serious productivity.

Some of the other potential downsides to concentrating so much functionality in a smartphone, include:

Dependence — By concentrating so many functions in a single device, people may become dependent on their smartphones for a wide range of activities, including communication, navigation, entertainment, and information gathering. This can lead to an unhealthy dependence on the device, which can have negative impacts on mental and physical health.

Distractions — Smartphones can be a major source of distractions, with apps, games, and social media platforms vying for users’ attention. This can lead to decreased productivity and focus and can even contribute to mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, much like dependence. Further, excessive smartphone use can also disrupt your sleep. Lack of sleep can have a serious impact on overall mental health and memory. It also can affect your ability to think clearly, and possibly reduce your cognitive and learning skills.

Cost — Smartphones can be expensive, rivaling the cost of a desktop computer, and the cost of maintaining them can also be significant. This can be a burden for individuals and companies, especially those that have a large number of employees.

Environmental impact — The production and disposal of smartphones can have negative environmental impacts, including the use of hazardous materials and the generation of electronic waste.

Security — By far the biggest issue with today’s smartphones in the workplace is security. Among the most critical security concerns are those involving:

• • • • • Vulnerability: Smartphones can be vulnerable to security threats such as malware, viruses, and hacking. This can be a concern for individuals, as phones often contain a wealth of personal information; and for companies, as employees may use their phones to access company systems.
        • Privacy: Smartphones are equipped with a variety of sensors and features that can be used to track users’ locations and activities. While this can be convenient for some purposes, it can also raise privacy concerns, as people may not want their movements and activities to be constantly monitored.
        • Data breaches: Smartphones can be vulnerable to data breaches, which can occur if the device is lost or stolen, or if it is hacked. This can be a concern for companies, as employees may store sensitive information on their phones or use them to access company systems. Ensuring that smartphones are properly secured and regularly updated is important to protect against these threats.
        • Malware: Smartphones can be infected with malware, which is software that is designed to cause harm to a device or to steal information. Malware can be delivered through malicious apps, websites, or emails, and can be difficult to detect. Ensuring that employees only download apps from trusted sources and that their phones are protected with antivirus software can help to reduce the risk of malware infection.
        • Phishing: Smartphones can be used to send and receive emails, which makes them vulnerable to phishing attacks. Phishing is a type of cybercrime in which attackers use fake emails or websites to trick people into divulging sensitive information or installing malware. Employees should be trained to recognize and report phishing attempts, and companies should implement measures to protect against these attacks.

Ultimately, whether smartphones have too many features depends on the perspective and needs of the individual user and possibly, their employer. So, is this amazingly powerful device, in fact, too powerful? The answer is no. True, it needs to be properly secured, but the smartphone is too useful to dismiss. Despite the glut of features and potential risks, the smartphone is a great invention. It provides a great depth of functionality to those users who need it and can use it, while providing simpler or reduce functionality for those who require less.

In the long run, smartphones are unlikely to be the apotheosis of personal technology. Likely some more personal and more intimate technology may come along and supplant our addiction to the smartphone. Maybe something that folds, is worn, is embedded under our skin, or is ambiently available in our environment.

For today, however, the true power of smartphones at work lies in their ability to connect people and facilitate communication and collaboration. These are critical metrics for success and difficult to meaningfully measure, but by continuing to leverage the advantage and capabilities of these devices, firms can create more efficient and effective teams that will grow as this technology evolves.

However, the reality remains far from simple. There are layers of algorithms that create content (thus the generative part of the name) by continually predicting the next word, with extremely large data sets needed to make these predictions accurate. Further, the newly-released GPT-4 is even multi-modal, meaning it can accept both text and image inputs, which ratchets up the complexity even further.

As a result, even among the most optimistic technologists, there remains some generative AI risks that can’t be ignored. And as a key panel, Reshaping the Legal Profession: Thriving in the Age of Generative AI & ChatGPT, at the recent Legalweek explored, the heavily hyped technology may be less of a do-it-all tool and more of a “moderately bright, but very lazy first-year associate.”

What generative AI is & what it isn’t

That comparison came courtesy of panelist Aaron Crews, currently Chief Product & Innovation Officer at alternative legal service provider UnitedLex and formerly Chief Data Analytics Officer at law firm Littler Mendelson. Crews noted that while many legaltech types have high hopes for generative AI use in law, including himself, at its core the technology isn’t that revolutionary.

“Generative AI is fancy marketing-speak for a machine that anticipates where you want to go next,” he said, adding that while there may be high expectations of a tool named artificial intelligence, in reality “it’s not intelligent.”

Indeed, generative AI is bounded by the data that is put into the system. That means that ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI and currently the most famous generative AI platform, has access to untold amounts of data to make its predictions — but that data is only current as of 2021, meaning it cannot adjust to newer events.

The tool also suffers from “hallucinations,” meaning that sometimes the technology “predicts” facts that have no actual basis in reality. In one notable case, as explained by panelist Foster Sayers, General Counsel & Chief Evangelist at software company Pramata, a Michigan judge tried asking ChatGPT about why a certain court decision was decided the way it was and found that ChatGPT completely made-up precedential cases — something the judge caught easily, since he had decided the case himself.

With the recent release of GPT-4, OpenAI claims a factual accuracy rate between 70% and 80%, depending on the subject matter. But that 20% below perfect is “significant” in law, explained another panelist, Ilona Logvinova, Associate General Counsel at McKinsey & Company. Technologists in law often run into risk-averse attorneys and clients, where one bad experience can lead to a closed door for all future technological advancements. And although some companies and even some law firms are hiring for a new role known as a prompt engineer to ask generative AI platforms more specific questions to get a desired outcome, it’s impossible to create a foolproof system.

“Prompt engineers are getting more popular, but they’re also learning on the spot,” Logvinova noted.

So where’s the use?

That’s not to say that generative AI will fall by the wayside, however. The panel identified a few potential use cases for generative AI in professional services as it now stands: document analysis, review and drafting; research and knowledge management; contract analysis and drafting; and chatbots and assistants. However, the technology is moving quickly, and so too are its potential applications, panelists added.

One panelist, Danielle Benecke, Founder of Baker McKenzie Machine Learning at law firm Baker McKenzie, noted that “firms and other enterprises have been sitting on this unstructured data forever,” which generative AI can help unlock.

However, while many regular generative AI use cases focus on the wide data sets the tool already has, it’s more interesting to start with the enterprise’s data and running AI against it, Benecke explained, adding that, for example, a firm’s M&A deal room could run generative AI against the data set and theoretically create a due diligence checklist based on the firm’s contracts that are already in place.

Pramata’s Sayers did question how much better generative AI is at producing new documents and contracts than simply using regular templates. While generative AI may produce bespoke work product, legal documents often have to be worded in a very specific way that’s tough to predict, he said. Contract experts such as TermScout’s Evan Harris have noted the same, finding that while generative AI can create a passable first draft contract, the outputs still require a good deal of editing and governance.

With these limitations in mind, Logvinova added “it’s safer and less risky” to use generative AI for internal purposes rather than for client-facing content or communications. Crews agreed, saying that he “absolutely would not” use ChatGPT for client work as the technology currently stands, but that it may be helpful in fast-forwarding the data creation and ingestion process.

No matter the use case, however, all panelists agreed it’s paramount to avoid the temptation of adopting generative AI just out of curiosity. Due to its risks, and with the technology in its early stages, any use should be conducted with the firm’s overall data strategy underpinning the AI use and with a specific goal in mind.

Benecke said her exploration of generative AI primarily focuses on holistic applications across the firm rather than one-off use cases. Any time the firm adopts an AI tool, she said, it’s with the specific goal to “supercharge the firm’s most valuable pre-existing service lines,” directly tying the AI use with a firm strategic initiative.

Still, there remains a number of unknowns about generative AI’s use in professional services, and the balance between risk and innovation with generative AI weighing on the scale is one that firms are still working out.

“Be forward-leaning, but be smart about your governance,” Benecke warned. “You don’t want to be that cautionary tale.”

Given that increased operational focus, there is a belief that corporate law departments are expecting similar innovative thinking from their outside law firms. However, data from Thomson Reuters Market Insights indicates that while law departments are generally satisfied with their outside firms, they believe firms’ overall innovation is lacking compared to other performance indicators. And even as law firms continue to invest in technology and other solutions, there may not be an incentive to innovate in the way that clients wish.

According to the Market Insights data, corporate law departments rate their outside firms’ innovation at a 7.5 out of 10 — a measure that has stayed consistent in recent years, as the rating has hovered between 7.3 and 7.5 dating back to 2019. While the rating may seem high, it actually ranks as the lowest key service attribute measured, with other attributes such as quality of work (8.9), communication (8.5), efficiency (8.3), and value (7.8) outpacing innovation in each of the past five years. The figure also stays consistently as the bottom ranking regardless of geography, including in the United States (7.6), the United Kingdom (7.0), Canada (7.4), or mainland Europe (7.7).

Corporate law departments’ overall rating of their outside firms stands at 8.6 out of 10. The data is drawn from interviews with 1,831 in-house counsel during the 2022 calendar year.

This rating of firms’ innovation may come as a surprise to the firms themselves, which have been continually pumping resources into technology purchases. The Thomson Reuters Law Firm Financial Index (LFFI) reveals that on average, law firms have seen jumps in technology spending of at least 4% year-over-year for each year dating back a decade. In each of the past five years (outside of pandemic-addled 2020), those tech spending boosts were all greater than 6% year-over-year.

So, where’s the disconnect? Jason Winmill, Chair of the Buying Legal Council and Managing Partner at corporate law technology consultancy Argopoint, says that based on his conversations with corporate law departments, they do indeed find their law firms’ innovation lacking. And Winmill says he has a theory as to why. Although firms may be innovating in terms of technology, he explains, they’re not innovating in the way that clients really want — in the firms’ business model.

“Outside counsel does excel in developing innovative responses to legal questions that emerge from today’s dynamic legal environment,” Winmill says. “Where outside counsel falls down is, as a group, they have failed to develop innovative business models, more attractive commercial approaches to solving clients’ problems, and innovative service delivery models or strategies that provide quality legal representation at better value.”

Law firms’ use of alternative billing structures and even alternative legal services is growing, but the overall alternative market still represents a fraction of the overall legal market. Thomson Reuters 2023 Alternative Legal Services Providers (ALSP) Report, for instance, estimates the total ALSP market to be around $21 billion, accounting for about a 20% compound annual growth rate. However, that figure still pales in comparison with an overall global legal market that’s nearing $1 trillion by various sources, with more than 40% of legal buyers anticipating even more upcoming spend increases.

Largely, Winmill says he believes the historical success of the legal market might be its own biggest barrier to change. “The law firms have built very impressive business models,” he says. “And my hypothesis is that the outstanding financial results of the Am Law firms doesn’t provide them with much incentive to innovate commercially. It almost seems to be a ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ mentality.”

Then, are corporate law departments destined to think less of firms’ innovation than of their other attributes? Perhaps, barring a major shift in the legal business model. But even if law firms were to more rapidly change how they conduct business, corporate law departments themselves may not be pushing for more innovation out of their legal partners, if not by their words than by their actions. Market Insights data finds that when asked what attributes they want their law firms most to improve upon, just 2% of corporate law respondents mentioned innovation. That ranked far below more common concerns such as comparative costs (27%), responsiveness (8%), and quality of advice (7%).

Indeed, until corporate law departments start focusing on their outside law firms’ innovation and making purchasing decisions based on innovation, the incentive to change remains low. And until that happens, there may remain a disconnect between what corporate law departments see as innovative, and how their firms choose to approach innovation.

For the immediate future then, one can expect to see innovation remain corporate law departments’ lowest ranked key service attribute of their outside law firms.

If you’re interested in understanding more about how the insights that underpin this month’s “Insights in Action” article are generated and how this data can better position your firm to adapt to changing market conditions, visit here.