Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Australian law firms are placing a stronger emphasis on accuracy and lawyer-verified outputs when using artificial intelligence, with many firms willing to prioritise quality over speed as they assess the technology’s role in legal work.
LEAP Legal Software’s Profitability in Law: Global Report 2026 surveyed 700 legal professionals across Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, and Canada, ultimately examining how legal practices are integrating AI and their expectations from it in terms of accuracy and speed.
As recently covered from the report, specifically regarding trust in AI, 38 per cent of legal practices expressed significant or total reliance on their artificial intelligence vendors, and 39 per cent balanced the need for rapid results with meticulous content oversight.
The findings, produced by Agile Market Intelligence, revealed that legal practitioners maintain a tempered level of confidence in AI developers, noting that firms across Australia and New Zealand exhibit greater hesitation than global peers and prioritise rigorous validation of outputs.
Talking about trust in AI for work – or lack thereof – several spokespeople across Australian and New Zealand firms explained why their firms haven’t adopted the booming software to assist with law practice as of yet.
“We don’t use AI, and I love that; I do not want to use AI, and I do not trust it,” an associate at a small Australian law firm said.
Additionally, a sole practitioner lawyer said: “I believe AI has limited utility at this time – test uses have been unsuccessful.”
Regarding the speed and quality of outputs in surrounding AI, firms ultimately expect a balance across those aspects.
The findings indicated that 39 per cent of legal practices seek an equilibrium between rapid delivery and the precision of results.
Furthermore, 24 per cent of respondents favour thorough verification over efficiency, while 21 per cent place greater value on velocity.
This data implies that while promptness is a key factor, legal firms ultimately view rigorous accuracy as the primary metric for measuring the success of artificial intelligence.
According to the findings, the prioritisation of lawyer-validated precision is most pronounced within the Australia and New Zealand markets, with practices in this region being twice as likely to value meticulous oversight over rapid delivery (32 per cent compared to 15 per cent).
Speaking about the firm’s approach to balancing efficiency with accuracy, a spokesperson of a small New Zealand law firm highlighted the role of human oversight in refining AI-generated responses.
“Our firm balances speed and accuracy well; we use AI to generate drafts quickly, but lawyers always review and refine responses to ensure quality,” the spokesperson said.
“Sometimes the review step slows things down, but it ensures we maintain a high standard.
“Our firm is doing well by carefully vetting AI tools and ensuring lawyers review outputs before use.
“However, we’re still learning how to fully integrate these tools into everyday workflows without slowing down processes.”
In contrast, legal firms across North America and the United Kingdom/Ireland displayed a more even distribution between these competing objectives, recording 20 per cent versus 24 per cent and 21 per cent versus 24 per cent, respectively.
Legal practices within the Australia and New Zealand markets demonstrate a significantly greater willingness to wait for lawyer-reviewed content, with 11 per cent prioritising precision over speed.
