The pressure is on, as every lawyer will tell you, the pressure to do more with less using AI…
The assumption that AI tools will automatically deliver productivity gains is a misnomer, there are very real situations in law where volumes of AI-induced reference material leads to hours of additional verification work. Productivity assumptions (and related resource pressures) may come from your boss, another department, clients, or even a competitor, as lower legal rates eat into previously untouched margins.
No one is arguing that AI tools don’t deliver remarkable efficiencies, but the question remains – is efficiency being measured, and if so, how?
To answer this and many other ‘AI in law’ questions the College’s innovation think-tank the Centre for Legal Innovation (CLI) conducted a profession-wide survey to find out how AI is being used by lawyers right now. The survey also delved into industry and client AI pressures, the profession’s readiness for the future and what skills lawyers may need in the years to come.
Read on for the top findings from our ‘2026 CLI Future of Law’ Survey and compare your AI outlook, literacy and organisational readiness with your peers.
The AI Productivity Equation
According to Alison Laird, the College’s Innovation and CLI Director, we are not dealing with a simple productivity story when it comes to AI.
“Productivity gains can be consumed almost as quickly as they are created, released capacity rarely sits idle waiting to be collected. It is usually absorbed, redirected or consumed. The important decision is not how much capacity AI releases it is where that capacity should go, who should benefit, and whether new demand simply absorbs it again,” Alison explains.
Along with capacity allocation, factors such as individual AI literacy rates, organisational AI maturity, system implementation and level of service redesign, all impact the productivity equation. The ‘2026 CLI Future of Law’ Survey found that 80% of the legal profession is still using general purpose LLMs over legal-specific AI solutions, this behaviour influences both capability expectations and risk profiles.
“Within organisations, sustainable change requires people who understand the legal work to collaborate with those responsible for technology, knowledge, data, risk, finance, operations and workforce design. Law firms also need to co-create with clients rather than redesign services in isolation. In-house teams need the wider business involved so that new ways of working solve operational problems and produce value the organisation can see,” Alison points out.
“Across the ecosystem, the same principle applies at a different scale. Educators and employers need a stronger feedback loop about changing work. Regulators, professional bodies and curriculum setters need to engage with the profession on the capabilities, safeguards and learning pathways future practice will require.”
Optimism vs reality: is the legal profession ready for what comes next?
One tends to assume lawyers are pessimistic, always looking for risk and how best to mitigate it. Well, according to the CLI Survey, a surprising 62% of you hold a healthy degree of optimism or are cautiously optimistic (can’t completely disregard risk mitigation) about the next three years for the profession.
Conversely, when it came to the question of industry preparedness, only 3% of respondents believe the profession is well prepared, and 40% partially prepared, for the challenges that will be faced by lawyers in the next three years.
The top five biggest challenges are as follows:
- AI and Technology Change (71% respondents)
- Client Expectations – Do more, quicker for less (50% respondents)
- Pricing/Business Model Pressure (38% respondents)
- Data Governance, Privacy/ Information Security (38% respondents)
- Mental Health and Wellbeing Across the Profession (37% respondents)
When we delved into organisational type and their major concerns, Law firms registered the highest rate of concern about Client Expectations (62%), followed by Pricing/ Business Model Pressure (52%) and then Talent Attraction (39%).
Government/NFPs were more likely to be concerned about Mental Health and Wellbeing Across the Profession (58%), and Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (29%). The Education Sector on the other hand is most concerned about Access to Justice and the Unmet Legal Gap (57%), Skills and Capability Gaps (46%) and Legal Education Models (43%).
AI adoption is accelerating faster than readiness
The horse has certainly bolted when it comes to AI and its use across the legal profession with 86% of respondents indicating their organisation’s active adoption of AI. Broken down 56% of respondents described active use, while 30% described the piloting of AI.
Respondents were also asked about their organisation’s readiness for AI and team literacy rates, these responses are a little more alarming:
- Only 17% described their organisation as AI ready
- 51% described their organisation as partially AI ready
- Only 17% described their team’s AI literacy as advanced
When it comes to the type of AI being used the risk profile continues to mount with 80% of those surveyed using General-Purpose LLMs, only 45% using Legal-Specific AI platforms and 29% using Custom-Built or Internally Developed Tools.
The most common ways AI is used by the legal profession included drafting by 64% of the respondents, Summarisation 63%, Research 61% and Document Review 54%.
As Alison Laird points out, with the widespread use of AI across the profession especially the use of LLMs across a diverse range of actions, verification and appropriate judgement have become non-negotiables.
“As the stakes rise, organisations may need more structure: agreed source sets, recoded checks, supervisory or specialist review, defined escalation points, or separation between producing the work and the person approving it,” Alison says.
“If lawyers are expected to verify AI-assisted work, they need access to the sources required to do so. They need enough time. They need to know what must be checked and where escalation is expected. And it should be possible to identify who ultimately made the decision.”
AI literacy is rated THE most important skill for the future legal profession
When asked what the most pressing skill for the future of the legal profession over the next three years AI Literacy was the overwhelming leader with 77% of respondents flagging this skill. This was followed by Client Communication with 54% flagging it, Ethical Reasoning at 49% and Governance/ Risk Management close behind at 48%.
There was also overwhelming agreement amongst the industry that AI Competency is a professional obligation with 88% of respondents agreeing. Where the responsibility for this professional obligation lies is still undecided, with the greatest consensus suggesting “Shared Equally” across the profession.
“Not every lawyer needs to become a technologist,” Alison says. “It is that technology can no longer be treated as someone else’s responsibility once it affects the legal work being delivered.”
“A lawyer does not need to understand every aspect of how a system was built. They do need enough competence to recognise when a task is unsuitable, frame the work appropriately, protect confidential information, test the output and know when further investigation or escalation is required. Delegating part of a task to AI does not delegate the lawyer’s responsibility, or professional obligation, for the work.”
Rates of AI investment are on the rise without measurements in place to back it up
Out of the legal professionals surveyed, 66% noted their organisation would make a moderate to significant investment in AI over the next 12 months, while just 31% said their organisation formally tracks whether AI value has been realised, and only 5% systemically track AI value across all initiatives.
To make the matter more opaque, how AI value is actually measured will have a big impact on the way in which AI value is perceived. In other words, what an organisation measures will shape what they see.
“Completing a task more quickly creates capacity. It does not tell us whether the organisation handled more work, improved quality, reduced risk, lowered cost, strengthened margin, improved client experience or made work more sustainable for its people,” Alison explains. “The danger is that the easiest measure quietly becomes the definition of success.”
One of the biggest questions the legal profession faces moving forward is how to structure pricing when the emphasis is shifting from hours spent working towards judgement and outcomes-based results. While our respondents could not agree on the most appropriate model moving forward, we were able to ascertain what the state of play is right now.
- Only 19% of respondents had seen a change in the way their organisation priced or billed for legal work due to AI/Technology change.
- Over the last 12 months only 19% of respondents had had clients push back on fees for work AI can now complete quickly.
Despite these low 'billing pressure' figures, 54% of respondents said their clients expected faster turnaround when using AI and 51% said clients expect a lower cost.
What should your next AI steps be?
To delve further into the themes raised in the profession-wide ‘2026 CLI Future of Law’ Survey, with 321 respondents from across Australia and New Zealand, the CLI also held 12 highly curated roundtables involving more than 220 participants. The combined study brought together perspectives from law firms, in-house legal teams, government and not-for-profit organisations, legal education, legal operations, knowledge management, technology providers, regulators, professional bodies and students.
The survey established a quantitative baseline, while the roundtables tested and deepened those findings through cohort-based discussion of the forces reshaping legal work, capability, education and careers.
The overwhelming message is clear. None of us has all the answers, but no part of the profession needs to navigate the transition alone.
The CLI will continue to bring people, evidence and ideas together, and work alongside the profession as we build what comes next. This was seen in action at the recent CLI 2026 APAC Summit, where representatives from across the industry came together to discuss what a cohesive approach to the future of law could look like.
The CLI team has put together a useful guide full of practical ideas, frameworks and tools to help the profession prepare for what comes next in the CLI 2026 Future of Law Report. To register your interest in a copy of the report please do so here.