The AI culture clash

More than nine in ten lawyers are already using, or planning to use, AI tools.

But have law firms and in-house teams successfully embedded AI into their workflow and operations? Apparently not.

Our latest generative AI survey found legal leaders are still struggling to balance speed with accuracy, increase billables without extra workload, and deliver greater value without undermining legal expertise.

AI is now commonplace among legal professionals

The latest LexisNexis survey of UK lawyers, which took place in August 2025 and included 700+ legal professionals, found:

Two-thirds (61%) of legal professionals now use generative AI for work purposes

This is a sharp increase from the 46% we saw in our January 2025 survey.

Between the two surveys, adoption increased not only among those who had planned to use AI, but also among those initially hesitant. The proportion of lawyers intending to adopt AI fell from 38% to 32%, while those with no plans to use it dropped significantly from 15% to just 6%.

These figures show how rapidly AI is reshaping legal practice, and why professionals must keep pace.

A partner of a small law firm included in the survey captured this shift towards AI adoption perfectly:

“If AI isn’t a part of how legal work is conducted, clients will see the firm as outdated and disengage. But keeping the service personable alongside AI will preserve clients’ sense of value.”

Although AI adoption is accelerating, our research found progress is being stalled by rigid corporate cultures.

Lawyers say AI culture is slow-moving

The top challenge facing legal professionals is keeping pace with new technology. This has risen from 41% at the start of the year to 49% in this survey.

While AI adoption is rising fast, lawyers are being held back by slow-moving corporate cultures.

Only 17% of all respondents said AI is "embedded in their strategy and operations".

The most common response was “we’re experimenting but progress is slow” at 39%.

Meanwhile, 19% reported interest but little investment, 9% cited resistance or fear, and another 9% said AI isn’t discussed at all.

This is far more than just a technology rollout, says Gerrit Beckhaus, a partner at Freshfields and Co-Head of Freshfields Lab.

"AI demands clear strategic direction and communication from the top, tying it to client-value outcomes and measurable impact."

Michelle Holford, Chief Commercial Officer from Slaughter and May, says:

"If you’re using AI correctly, it should be delivering a better outcome or making someone’s life easier."

Yet adoption is hard, she notes. "You have to give lawyers time to play, learn and fail in order to work out how best to use a new tool. It’s not always easy to create the space for those things to happen in a fast-moving, high-pressure environment but doing so reaps rewards."

Embedding AI into strategy and operations comes down to good change management, says Eversheds Sutherland's Director of Legal Technology, Bhavisa Patel.

"You can have the best solution, but if people don’t know what it is, how to use it, or how it will help them, the benefits will always be limited."

Another factor stalling innovation is that many of these tools are still evolving and ROI remains elusive, says Sarah Barnard, the Director of AI Delivery at Linklaters.

"Some firms are waiting for clearer evidence of value before making major AI investments."

Get access to Protégé™: the next-generation AI assistant that combines trusted Legal Research and Practical Guidance from LexisNexis

A number of respondents, especially those from smaller firms, expressed concern that their clients are already well ahead of them on their AI journey.

A senior consultant from a small firm said:

“Clients often have higher AI skills and knowledge than my colleagues and me. If our use and knowledge improved, it would give clients more confidence.”

Lawyers from in-house legal teams were more likely to say AI is embedded in their strategy and operations, at 32%.

Candice Donnelly, recently the Director of Legal, Corporate at Skyscanner, believes the most effective AI implementations are not the flashiest, but those designed and executed with clear intent.

"Without a well-defined use case, AI outputs risk becoming a source of digital noise – producing process maps, reference materials, and documentation that look visually impressive but add little strategic value beyond swelling our reading lists."

Resistance to amending one’s way of working is inevitable, says Deputy General Counsel at Colt, Alessandro Galtieri.

"The noise about 'hallucinations', even in mainstream media, and the 'black box' nature of some solutions, renders lawyers quite understandably suspicious."

Finding a way for AI tools to integrate into existing workflows and processes will be essential, he says.

This mix of enthusiasm, caution, and cultural resistance shows that while AI adoption is advancing, the profession is still far from unlocking its full potential.

What AI tools are lawyers using?

Our survey revealed lawyers using AI have a majority preference for tools built specifically for legal work, such as Lexis+ AI. Just over half (51%) use legal AI tools – 27% use them exclusively and 24% alongside general AI tools. The remaining 49% of AI users rely solely on general AI tools.

More than half of lawyers using AI have invested in purpose-built legal tools

Lawyers at private practice firms are more inclined to use legal AI tools (58%), particularly those from medium-sized firms (70%).

Specialist AI solutions are built with lawyers in mind and trained on legal content, says Patel from Eversheds.

"Generic AI tools still remain useful for things like improving personal productivity. They just don’t have the same depth of legal context and therefore won’t be as valuable or accurate in delivering good outputs to specific and complex legal use cases."

For AI to be particularly useful for lawyers, it needs a strong grounding in the specific legal context, says Freshfields' Beckhaus.

"AI needs access to relevant context, including proprietary knowledge, expertise, and sensitive client information that cannot be shared with public chatbots."

This comes down to a good understanding of the legal services sector, says Barnard from Linklaters.

"Legal AI tools are intended for use by lawyers, and vendors are aware of how stringent their approach to compliance and data security must be. This is an area where general tools often fall short."

One of AI’s biggest time-saving benefits for lawyers is in legal research. According to 77% of respondents, the matters demanding the most research are in unfamiliar or highly specialised areas of law, which can be rapidly accelerated when using legal AI tools like Lexis+ AI.

A leader at a small law firm told us:

"AI makes legal solutions and communications more efficient, and reduces the time spent on research and guidance by a significant amount."

While AI adoption is rapidly growing, more than three-quarters (77%) still harbour concerns over relying on inaccurate information.

Another partner of a small law firm told us general AI tools are "raising concerns due to the accuracy of the data being in doubt."

Recent scandals of lawyers citing cases in court that AI has just made up are particularly worrying, the partner said.

Tony Randle, Partner Client Technology & Service Improvement at Shoosmiths, says:

"A lawyer would never rely on Google to answer a legal question, so they should not rely on general AI platforms to take on tasks that require legal knowledge."

General AI tools can support operational efficiency in a law firm, says Randle, but matters that need legal expertise also need specialist solutions specifically designed, trained and tuned for the task.

Among the most common barriers holding lawyers back, says Beckhaus, are unrealistic expectations, such as “perfect answers” on the first try.

"Interacting with LLMs requires iteration and a willingness to experiment."

Patel says "Lawyers need to know that these tools aren’t perfect, yet despite that, have the comfort that they are still safe to use."

For the risk-averse legal profession, confidence in AI use is closely tied to the quality of its sources.

Overall, 71% of all lawyers said they would or do feel more confident using AI when it's grounded in trusted legal sources. For those using legal AI, this confidence grew to 88%.

Get instant answers grounded in the UK’s most trusted legal sources

Trust in both law and AI relies on credibility and transparency, says Donnelly.

As practitioners, we rely on sources that we know from experience to be reputable. With AI tools still at a relatively early stage of development, that trust still needs to be earned, not assumed, and AI needs to respect the fact that the source still matters as much as the substance.

When an AI tool can demonstrate that its output is grounded in quality resources, it shifts from being a clever search assistant to a credible aide, Donnelly notes.

The forces shaping AI adoption are shifting fast and differ across firms. So what’s the reality for lawyers using these tools day to day?

How lawyers will spend the time saved using AI

With AI speeding up legal research, drafting and administrative tasks, private practice lawyers are using the free time saved to take on more chargeable work, win more work and develop a deeper strategic relationship with their clients.

More than half (56%) of private practice lawyers using AI told us they would spend the extra time increasing billable work

The same is true for those planning to invest in AI, with 61% revealing a strong preference to increase billable work. Does this mean the billable hour is already being phased out to increase billable work? Or perhaps non-billable work is taking less time, clearing more space for high value, billable work?

The number of hours a fee-earning lawyers is expected to bill per year differs greatly from firm to firm, but even a modest annual target of 1,400 equates to approximately 6 hours a day. There's also other work to factor in: administrative tasks, internal meetings, training and one-to-ones, and business development. It's little wonder the legal profession is notoriously overworked.

Lawyers spend a lot of time on administrative tasks, says Patel from Eversheds.

"Without the administrative burden, lawyers can focus on how to turn a good client relationship into a deep strategic partnership, which in turn will lead to higher quality outputs and happier clients."

Lawyers should also be able to manage a better work-life balance in general, says Patel.

Interestingly, lawyers using AI had a clear appetite to promote personal wellbeing as much as professional productivity. A similar 53% of AI-empowered private practice lawyers also reported enjoying a better work-life balance. Those with plans to invest, however, prioritised the commercial benefits of AI over work-life balance (40%).

Respondents from large law firms, including leaders and support staff, lean heavily towards commercial gains, with 61% focusing on increasing billable work compared to 49% prioritising work-life balance. Small law firms, by contrast, reverse the emphasis: 59% of lawyers enjoy a better work-life balance, while 49% attempt to increase billable hours.

Interestingly, associates are prioritising increasing billables over work-life balance, regardless of their firm's size. In fact, those at smaller firms are more likely to prioritise increasing billables (61%) than those at medium (58%) and large law firms (60%).

Meet deadlines, manage risk, and deliver stronger outcomes under pressure.

In-house lawyers are more likely to take advantage of work-life balance (52%) over other potential benefits such as personal development (36%) or team development (32%). Only 14% said they would use the time to focus on improving stakeholder relationships.

Donnelly says producing reports and standard documentation can take up a lot of time for in-house counsel.

"Over the past 12 months, we have seen a real increase in AI tools that can handle these tasks with speed and consistency, enabling teams to focus on more strategic advisory work and complex problem-solving."

AI has the potential to rebalance how we use our time by helping us work a little smarter, she notes.

"It’s not about saving time. It’s helping us redefine how we spend it best individually and as a team."

One General Counsel said AI allows their department to get a rough idea of the answer before testing it with other sources.

"We don't 100% rely on AI but it helps make the interaction with external counsel quicker and cheaper."

Another General Counsel told us: "We have a service driven culture, and using tech to lead would be a considerable change."

As a greater proportion of legal work becomes automated or streamlined, there will eventually be a shift from hours worked to value delivered. Pricing will, as many expected, become a topic of discussion.

Matching pricing models to value delivered

AI's influence on the legal sector can be seen clearly in law firm pricing models.

In our January 2025 survey, 40% of all respondents agreed that AI would change how firms bill. Just a few months later, that figure has jumped to 47%. This shift is particularly prevalent in general counsel (55%) and law firm leaders (49%).

Calculating how to charge for work will be a challenge for many firms in the future, a partner at a large law firm told us, especially when the billable hour no longer provides a sensible measure for work.

"Given lawyers' reliance on billing by the hour, clients will expect lower fees because AI delivers quicker results."

Another senior leader at a law firm noted this impending shift in expectations.

"Clients will have an increased expectation that high value professional services should provide advice that cannot be easily gleaned from readily available search tools, including those powered by AI."

There will also be an expectation of a better quality of service, he says, which will be driven by the combination of trained lawyers and trained AI.

The top alternative billing models in place by law firm leaders are: fixed fee by matter (69%), retainers (44%) and flat fees (31%).

When asked which novel pricing models they'd be interested in exploring, the top responses were 'dynamic pricing based on risk or complexity' and 'bundled services combining AI tools and expert reviews', both at 32%.

New pricing models will emerge along with new or improved products and service offerings, said Randle from Shoosmiths.

"Firms are also beginning to offer clients self-serve products and managed service solutions that combine tech solutions with related legal support."

"We expect more fixed, portfolio, and subscription pricing, reflecting both client demand for predictability and AI’s role in reshaping service delivery to improve outcomes and value."

Interestingly, a growing number of private practice lawyers using AI said their firm is tracking time-saved. More than half (54%) of private practice lawyers using AI said they measure success based on this metric, up from 46% in January of this year.

In fact, the number of private practice firms without any metrics in place fell from 26% to 19%.

This reflects a growing recognition that efficiency gains are one of the clearest and quickest ways to prove AI’s value. The evolution of law firm pricing models, therefore, seems imminent rather than speculative.

Your people will leave without AI

The knock-on effects of failing to adequately invest in AI are becoming clear.

Overall, 18% of respondents from private practice and 19% from in-house corporate said they would consider leaving their organisation if it failed to invest in AI.

One in five lawyers from private practice and in-house legal teams would consider leaving if their firm failed to invest in AI

This rises to 26% for those in large law firms, suggesting that expectations for AI adoption are highest in the largest, most competitive environments.

Slaughter and May's Holford says this comes down to culture.

"If you can be open minded and have a willingness to experiment, it creates a culture where people are keen to try new technologies, not having them forced upon them."

Perceptions of career risk are also significant. In private practice, 39% believe that a failure to engage with AI would negatively affect their careers. This concern is even greater among in-house lawyers, with 49% sharing this view.

Despite this, organisational support remains limited:

Only 24% said their organisation had provided them with appropriate training to use AI safely
Only 28% have an AI policy that is easy to understand and follow. This went up to 45% in large law and 37% for in-house.

Donnelly says AI is no longer a future consideration but a present-day expectation.

"While a company may have seen AI as a novelty or a box ticking exercise, now a legal function expects access to an AI tool that enables it to focus increasingly on high-value, judgment-driven work."

To attract and retain talent, Donnelly says legal teams need to streamline contract analysis, enhance regulatory tracking, and support decision-making with contextual intelligence to accelerate delivery.

Galtieri from Colt says the adoption of AI would have little impact if limited only to the legal function.

"The transformative possibilities of AI will lie in the ability to re-engineer organisation-wide processes. Legal can be an adoption pioneer, but full integration of an AI solution with Finance, or Sales, or Procurement, will really move the needle for the whole enterprise."

Legal leaders should be openly communicating the benefits of AI. This will give lawyers the confidence to let AI do the heavy lifting and use these tools to their full potential.

Do your lawyers have "permission" to use AI?

Despite adoption escalating, only 11% of lawyers using AI said they are relying on it heavily for their day-to-day work. This dipped to 7% for respondents from large and medium-sized firms, yet surprisingly rose to 16% for those at small law firms. Lawyers inside corporates were the most likely to rely heavily on AI at 18%.

Only 11% of lawyers using AI said they are relying on it heavily

This finding is a double-edged sword: while “heavy use” might suggest over-reliance or complacency, it can also highlight the opposite problem: they're afraid to use it or afraid to talk about using it. Many teams remain wary of depending too much on AI. In fact, one of the biggest concerns when using AI is relying too heavily on it (47%).

Beckhaus from Freshfields says AI should also be embedded into existing workflows and knowledge systems.

"AI tools should be supported by hands-on, role-based enablement and credible role models at every seniority level to build trust and adoption."

Barnard from Linklaters says firms should focus on building their people's confidence when using AI, highlighting where it adds value and where it has limitations.

"By managing expectations and providing practical support, firms avoid the disillusionment that can often follow initial hype and instead create real, sustainable value from AI."

The firms making the most headway are the ones with a senior leadership team that recognises AI adoption and integration are fundamental for future business success, Randle from Shoosmiths notes.

"The biggest strides come from firms where the most senior people are leading by example, using AI on a daily basis and demonstrating to everyone in the firm how it can help them with their everyday workload."

The use of AI still comes with a stigma of cutting corners. Legal leaders need to have honest and open conversations about when their teams should be using AI, embedding confidence and encouraging its use.

AI is no longer a question of if, but how fast.

Lawyers who embed AI into strategy, pricing, and everyday workflows will unlock efficiency, value, and trust.

Those who don’t risk falling behind their clients, their competitors, and even their own people. The culture clash won’t last forever. The firms or departments that lead with confidence today will define the profession tomorrow.