Who is really benefiting from the legal AI boom?

The survey of more than 2,200 lawyers also revealed several other key trends, including limited AI-driven price reductions, growing client use of the technology, and the continued dominance of general-purpose tools such as ChatGPT and Claude within firms.

Speaking to Lawyers Weekly, co-author and principal researcher Dr Georgie Rychner said she was most surprised “by how negative a picture it portrayed in terms of the lawyer-client relationship”.

“It raises some questions about what needs to be done in this space to improve client use of AI and make sure clients are arriving informed, or that they can become more informed in that interaction with their lawyer,” Rychner said.

The research draws on the 2026 Victorian Lawyer Census, which found practitioners predominantly use general-purpose AI tools, particularly for information gathering and administrative tasks.

The LSRC will soon add to this research with a survey of clients.

AI use ‘not a choice anymore’

VIEW ALL

Among the 55 per cent of Victorian lawyers who said they use AI, just under 80 per cent reported their use has increased since 2025.

One of the LSRC’s most notable findings was that 70 per cent of practitioners identified that their organisations have stipulated which AI tool is appropriate for use. However, specified use did little to curb the use of generic tools over legal-specific tools.

Another key finding was that differences in AI use across age groups and career stages have “largely disappeared”. While use was concentrated among lawyers aged 30 and under in 2025, the 2026 data showed broadly similar uptake across all ages under 60.

Taking this together, Rychner said the organisational uptake has indicated that generative AI “is not just a choice anymore”.

“There’s been a concerted effort to implement organisational policies and training for practitioners, and that means we’re seeing it not just concentrated in those younger demographics anymore,” she said.

AI use increases, but pricing remains stagnant

Out of the respondents who indicated they use AI tools in their practice, just 26 per cent reported a reduction in pricing.

However, 18 per cent reported AI enabled them to take on more work that would have previously been uneconomical, 7 per cent said it enabled fixed-fee or capped-fee arrangements, and 3 per cent said the tools enabled unbundling of services.

The LSRC report said: “In 2025, 46 per cent of respondents indicated that they saw AI’s potential in enhancing affordability. In 2026, that potential had been realised only for a minority.”

The report indicated corporate lawyers were most likely to report a reduction in fees, and those using legal-specific tools.

There was also little evidence to suggest reduced fees could be a result of AI use and organisation size, with LSRC finding reduced fees for clients were lowest for sole practitioners (22 per cent) and highest with organisations with 200 or more staff (29 per cent).

Transactional v relational: Where AI thrives

Rychner’s research revealed AI use was most common in commercial areas of law, such as trade practices (85 per cent), banking and finance (78 per cent), information technology and telecommunications (78 per cent), intellectual property (75 per cent) and corporate law (also 75 per cent).

Use dropped significantly for criminal lawyers (29 per cent), family law (45 per cent) and administrative law (46 per cent).

Interestingly, those working within family, small business, taxation and wills and estates law were among the areas most likely to interact with clients who have used AI tools.

Of these lawyers, 46 per cent reported an increase in time and effort, and just 19 per cent a reduction in workload.

“On the practitioner side, we’re seeing practitioners using AI predominantly for transactional and advisory tasks, and less so for relational, client-facing work,” Rychner said.

“And then, on the client side, we’re seeing clients using generative AI for when they’re faced with extremely stressful life situations, and they’re not sure where to turn to for help.

“Family law was really coming through in that, and we saw it coming through in migration law and a few other areas as well.”

The sectors bearing the brunt of client misuse

Community Legal Centres (CLCs) reported having clients who arrived with misleading or inaccurate information, or questioned and challenged legal advice, “at much higher rates than, say, BigLaw firms”, Rychner said.

Increases in the time and effort it took to wade through clients’ AI usage were highest at CLCs (58 per cent). Lawyers in this sector were also less likely to use the tools themselves.

While there is “vast potential” for AI to improve and enhance access to justice, Rychner said it is “not happening yet”.

As for why CLCs may be struggling the most, Rychner said it could be due to the uneven distribution of resources across the legal services market and the capabilities of their clients.

“What we’re seeing is these BigLaw firms potentially have clients who are repeat users of legal services and who have higher levels of legal capability,” Rychner said.

“They themselves probably have a better working knowledge and understanding of AI, so they can advocate for themselves.

“Whereas with community legal sectors, you’re not seeing that as much – but that is just speculation, we are waiting on the client-side data to come through because we might find everyday people are saying ‘AI really helped me’.”