Education needed to address lags in AI capability

This call from InfoTrack has come on the back of research that demonstrated operational capability has not kept pace with the rapid expansion of AI adoption across the legal profession.

The legal technology group cited Clio’s 2026 Legal Insights Report, which found 96 per cent of 1,000 respondents use AI in some form, but only 39 per cent have embedded it into their daily workflows.

The 2026 Australia AI Sentiment Survey from LexisNexis found that 69 per cent of 1,039 respondents are using or planning to use generative AI for legal work, with confidence climbing from 75 per cent in 2023–2024 to 90 per cent in the following reporting period.

However, LexisNexis’ survey also revealed that the top-cited concerns have barely moved, including reliance on inaccurate or fabricated outputs, leakage of confidential data, and becoming over-reliant on AI.

The Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner found in its 2025 Victorian lawyer census that only 36.7 per cent of lawyers are actively using AI tools in practice, concentrated in research, document review, and correspondence, rather than legal decision making.

LEAP’s Profitability in Law global report found Australian firms are trailing international peers, with just 16 per cent using legal-specific AI daily or as part of core workflows, compared with 49 per cent globally, and the highest reported distrust of AI integration in any region.

VIEW ALL

Ajay Kumar, head of AI solutions at InfoTrack, said what lawyers need is not more AI noise, but “space to practise”.

“The education gap is more than just explaining what a large language model is. It is about helping practitioners understand what can safely happen on a real file, what needs review, and what should never move without approval,” Kumar said.

InfoTrack said legal AI tools built for global enterprise legal teams and broad commercial contract review do not always reflect the way Australian lawyers and conveyancers work on local matters.

According to Kumar, the firms that are succeeding with AI will not be the ones who “simply switch on another tool”, but rather those “that know how to use AI within trusted workflows, with the right data, the right controls and the right human oversight”.

While some legal bodies – such as the Law Council of Australia and several state and territory law societies – have consistently emphasised that lawyers must understand the tool and protect confidential information, others have moved towards more structured training.

The ACT Bar Association has partnered with an AI training provider on an 18-month formal workshop for barristers on safe and accurate generative AI (GenAI) use, which is reportedly the first move by a bar association.

Legal education providers have also made moves in this direction, including the College of Law’s folding of responsible GenAI use into the core competencies of its Practical Legal Training.

InfoTrack said this demonstrates that awareness training may have been the first, and important, phase, but it is time for this education to be practical, matter-grounded, and ongoing.

“The profession has done the hard work of getting comfortable with AI existing. The next job is getting practitioners comfortable using it correctly, consistently, and with clear lines around where human judgement has to stay in charge,” Kumar said.

“That is where we believe the industry’s attention, including ours, needs to go next.”

InfoTrack is looking at what more structured, hands-on AI training using real technology could look like.

“We don’t think the answer is another explainer video. We’re looking at what it would take to give practitioners a genuine, practical grounding – the kind of training people can apply to their own files, not just talk about at a conference,” Kumar said.

“It’s early, but it’s a direction we’re serious about, and it’s one we think the whole profession needs to move in.”