AI’s next test for APAC law firms: Building trust, improving efficiency

Time efficiency remains the greatest perceived benefit, while reliability, privacy and disconnected workflows continue to shape how AI can be used proficiently.

As organisations move beyond experimentation, the focus is changing from whether AI is being utilised to whether it can be trusted, implemented, and monitored.

The results highlight a transition towards a more integrated future, one where AI defines comprehensive legal tasks while ensuring that expert supervision, individual judgement, and ethical accountability stay fundamentally central.

AI adoption to AI impact

Speaking to Lawyers Weekly, LexisNexis managing director ANZ, Carol Chris, highlighted the key takeaways from the survey, indicating that adoption is a thing of the past, with those not using AI in the minority by a landslide.

“Adoption is no longer the story, 94 per cent of legal professionals across APAC are using AI, and legal research stands out as a particularly strong use case in Australia and New Zealand for specialist legal AI tools,” Chris said.

VIEW ALL

“The real question for Australian firms now is whether that widespread use is translating into dependable value, not just busier AI usage stats.”

Beneath that headline figure of 94 per cent – which is up from 88 per cent in 2025 – it is evident that the mix is changing.

Forty-nine per cent of legal professionals use specialist legal AI, while 39 per cent combine specialist tools with generally available AI, such as Claude and ChatGPT.

The survey demonstrated that specialist legal AI use reaches 70 per cent in New Zealand and 54 per cent in the Chinese mainland.

By segment, 57 per cent of law firm respondents use specialist legal AI, either alone or alongside generally available tools, in comparison to 45 per cent of corporate respondents.

It was found that corporate respondents are more likely to use generally available AI alone, with such differences describing the mix of tools in use, rather than the maturity or quality of adoption.

From time saved to proven productivity

The report indicated that evaluating the actual impact of artificial intelligence remains far more complex than tracking its adoption.

While these tools can generate answers rapidly, that efficiency is frequently undermined by the need for thorough verification or the occurrence of redundant data.

Reliability and confidentiality, therefore, sit alongside productivity as considerations in the design and assessment of AI-enabled legal work.

When asked about what the shift from AI adoption to genuine value creation looks like in practice, Chris highlighted a key distinction for Australian lawyers and law firms.

“Only half of Australian law firms say they actually measure AI’s value, so there’s a real opportunity to move from assumed benefit to proven results,” Chris said.

“The 83 per cent who expect AI to create capacity for higher-value work are right to expect it, the challenge is making sure that time saved on research actually holds up once verification and rework are factored in, which is exactly why the quality of the underlying tool matters as much as the time saved upfront.”

Building trust through quality and integration

The report concluded that AI’s value is dependent on two connected conditions: trusted output and integrated workflows that allow legal professionals to apply it with confidence.

When asked about what Australian firms should be doing now to address issues surrounding reliability, confidentiality and workflow integration, Chris noted the importance of building trust into AI adoption from the outset.

“Accuracy and confidentiality are the two leading concerns nationally, so trust has to start with the quality and currency of the content an AI tool is built on, and clear assurance over how client data is handled,” Chris said.

“With half of Australian law firms juggling three or more systems per matter, integration is the other piece worth solving, since a reliable answer still creates friction if it doesn’t fit cleanly into the way lawyers already work.”

According to the survey, the accuracy and hallucination risk remained the leading concern, cited by 63 per cent of respondents, followed by confidentiality and data security at 57 per cent.

AI as an enabler of professional expertise

When questioned on what best practice for AI use will look like in Australian legal organisations, Chris pointed to a balance between embracing efficiency and preserving the professional judgement, accountability, and trust that strengthen legal work.

“Specialist expertise is still what clients expect most from their law firm, and that hasn’t changed,” Chris said.

“The firms that get this right will treat AI as a way to protect more time for genuine judgement and strategic thinking, rather than as a shortcut that seeks to replace it.”