New research shows that those in private practice lead corporate counsel, 54 per cent to 46 per cent, in AI governance.
Recently, Lawyers Weekly reported on trends within the governance of AI in Australian law firms, concluding that larger firms (upwards of 200 employees) harness greater resources to enact firmer policy on AI use than any smaller firms. BigLaw firms also gravitated towards AI-integrated legal tech as opposed to standalone AI software.
The same study, Brand Intelligence: Law, which was conducted by Agile Market Intelligence, shows that, for corporate counsel, tools such as Copilot, ChatGPT, and Claude lead integrated AI-tech by about 20 per cent. This, of course, leaves room to operate with far fewer constraints and frameworks despite often being part of well-oiled, corporate environments.
On paper, it makes sense. Standalone lawyer, standalone tech. And even with legal teams, the physical layout and nature of in-house work mean they may be removed from technology procurement decisions and industry-specific methods. A different focus – company versus field – and different expectations also account for this disparity.
Michael Johnson, director at Agile Market Intelligence, said the number of corporate counsel turning to standalone AI “signals a procurement disconnect”, adding “they might belong to large enterprises, but are left to rely on consumer-grade tools rather than legal-specific solutions”.
In addition, 2023–2024 trends as reported by the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) looked at familiarity with AI in legal practices, with the biggest proportion, 53 per cent, holding only a moderate understanding of and engagement with the technology. Interestingly, the difference between reported corporate counsel and private practice lawyers who do not use AI is only 4 per cent. Perhaps personality is the deciding factor when guidelines are vague.
There is, of course, growing interest in AI integration into operations. The ACC found 18 per cent of legal departments are planning to implement this technology soon, on top of the 21 per cent with existing practices.
From a variety of uses, there were a few commonalities across departments. A whopping 62 per cent engaged with AI for contract analysis, with document review and management a close second at 59 per cent, 48 per cent for legal research and 38 per cent for communicating legal advice to non-lawyer colleagues.
However, data around policy is less reassuring. While the aforementioned 46 per cent of corporate counsel are supported by clear policies that dictate which tools and when are permitted, 20 per cent more only operate with vague guidelines, and another 25 per cent are still in the policy development stage.
Perhaps the focus should be less on when corporate counsel will catch up to private practice – which is not exactly a star pupil itself – but how soon effects will start to show. It is apparent that both in-house and private practice teams cannot afford to move at their own pace, given AI’s swift advancement and progression from optional to obligatory.
