Lawyers lose more than 8 weeks a year to tech inefficiency

The State of Legal Tech 2026 report, surveying 1,005 legal professionals nationwide, uncovered that 60 per cent of Australian lawyers are losing six or more hours each week struggling with overly complex or underperforming technology.

While six hours a week may not sound minor, over the course of a year, it adds up to roughly 44.6 working days – the equivalent of more than eight full weeks lost to inefficiency.

While this reality clearly affects individual lawyers, Clio pointed out that it also carries significant consequences for firms, impacting “billable hours, client service, strategic growth, and their capacity to innovate”.

Despite the scale of that figure, the issue appears to be largely normalised within the profession.

The same research found that 91 per cent of lawyers report being satisfied with their current legal technology, pointing to a disconnect between perceived performance and actual productivity outcomes.

So why are lawyers still reporting high satisfaction when so much of their time is being lost?

VIEW ALL

Within the report, Clio said familiarity may be driving this trend, with many firms accepting inefficiency as the price of avoiding change and the perceived risks associated with adopting new systems.

The report also suggested that many lawyers have simply adapted to their existing systems and may not fully appreciate how much more efficient alternative platforms could be.

In revealing these findings, the global cloud-based legal technology provider described the issue as a “growing complacency tax” within the legal profession – a widespread, accepted inefficiency quietly “eroding productivity and increasing operational risk”.

Compounding the issue is the rapid rise of artificial intelligence tools across the legal sector, further exposing gaps in how firms manage and govern technology.

Although many firms turn to these technologies to improve efficiency, the report highlights a governance gap, with only 37 per cent of firms having strong AI policies or oversight mechanisms in place.

Clio highlighted that the lack of clear frameworks has fuelled the rise of so-called “shadow AI”, where lawyers independently adopt unapproved tools in an effort to boost efficiency.

While often motivated by a desire to save time, this behaviour can create significant risks, especially around client confidentiality, data privacy, and cyber security.

Sarah Murphy, general manager, international at Clio, shared that this trend reflects a broader challenge in how firms approach technology management.

“Lawyers are trained to practise law, not necessarily to run technology strategy or manage complex data infrastructure,” Murphy said.

“As AI tools become more accessible, if firms are not proactively addressing the business of law, including governance, security, and clear technology policies, there is a real risk that shadow AI tools will emerge within teams.

“That can unintentionally expose firms to cyber security vulnerabilities and serious data privacy concerns. Strong leadership in this area is not just about innovation; it is about protecting clients, reputation, and the integrity of the practice.”