iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Legal technology is changing how some firms research, draft, review documents, manage matters, and handle routine office work. But rising interest does not mean every firm has adopted AI, that every tool is reliable, or that the available evidence measures startup growth. For law firms, the useful question is how to identify a real workflow need, assess a tool’s risks, and determine whether it improves work for lawyers and clients.
What is legal tech, and what does the evidence say about its rise?
Legal tech is software and related technology used to deliver legal services or run legal operations. It includes established categories such as legal research, practice and document management, cloud services, and electronic court filing, as well as newer AI-enabled tools for research, drafting, contract analysis, document review, and administrative tasks. A vendor may be a startup, an established software company, or part of a broader technology provider; the category alone does not establish a vendor’s size or quality.
The available survey evidence points to growing use and interest, but it does not provide a census of legal tech startups, startup funding trends, or independent comparative tests of products. It also measures different things: individual lawyers’ work use, firm-level use, and the use of unauthorized tools are not interchangeable. Treat the figures as signals about adoption and concerns—not as a ranking of vendors or proof of performance.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
| Source and scope | Reported finding | How to interpret it |
|---|---|---|
| ABA, 2025 Legal Industry Report article; more than 2,800 legal-professional respondents | 31% reported personal work use of generative AI, while 21% reported law-firm use for 2024. The corresponding reported figures for 2023 were 27% and 24%. | Personal use and firm use are separate measures. The article notes that uncertain responses differed between years, so the figures should not be read as a simple like-for-like trend in formal deployment. |
| ABA, 2024 AI TechReport article; online survey of 512 respondents | 30.2% said their offices used AI-based technology; the reported figures were 47.8% for firms with 500 or more lawyers and 17.7% for solo practitioners. | These are responses to a specific survey, not a universal estimate of legal AI use. The size difference suggests adoption can vary substantially by firm context. |
| Thomson Reuters, 2026 Legal Future of Professionals report; 736 law-firm professionals in 46 countries, including 421 in the United States; data collected March and April 2026 | 34% said they were using AI tools their firm had not authorized. | This indicates a gap between tool use and formal approval in the surveyed population. It does not establish that unauthorized use caused an incident. |
| ABA, March 2025 news release summarizing its 2024 survey | The release reported that 73% of firms used cloud-based legal tools and 85% of litigators used electronic court filings. | These figures describe broad technology categories in the ABA’s 2024 survey, not current performance by any particular vendor or AI product. |
How are law firms using AI and other legal technology?
AI can assist with research, drafting, contract analysis, document review, and administrative workflows. These are possible uses, not a guarantee that a tool’s output is accurate or appropriate for a specific matter. Survey-reported experiences and expectations cannot substitute for a firm’s own review of a product under its actual work conditions.
#1 Best Overall
Legal technology also extends beyond generative AI. The ABA’s survey coverage includes legal research, law-office systems, litigation technology, cloud services, and e-filing. A firm may need improvements to matter or document flows rather than a new AI capability. Start by identifying the work to improve; do not assume that a product marketed as AI is the answer.
What the ABA survey says about AI research tools
In the ABA’s 2024 survey article, respondents named ChatGPT (52.1%), Thomson Reuters CoCounsel (26.0%), and Lexis+ AI (24.3%) among the leading platforms they had adopted or were seriously considering for AI-based legal research. These percentages are not market share: they describe named platforms among the survey respondents and the article’s specified measure. The examples are not a comprehensive directory or an endorsement.
What should law firms look for in legal technology?
Evaluate a tool against a defined job, the systems around it, the people responsible for its outputs, and the value the firm expects to deliver. The ABA’s 2025 industry-report article says firms prioritize integration with existing systems and legal workflows, alongside alignment with ethical requirements. Its 2024 AI survey also shows why accuracy, reliability, privacy, cost, and learning time need explicit attention.
| Evaluation area | Questions for the firm |
|---|---|
| Workflow fit | What specific task will change? Who performs it, what information enters the process, and where must the result go next? Does the product fit the matter and document flow? |
| Accuracy and reliability | Which outputs can be checked against authoritative sources or underlying documents? What errors appear in representative work, and what review must a qualified lawyer perform? |
| Confidentiality, privacy, and security | What information will users submit? How is it retained or used? What contractual terms and controls apply, and how will the firm restrict and monitor use? Survey concerns do not certify any vendor’s safeguards. |
| Integration and usability | Can the tool work with existing systems and legal workflows? Can users be trained to apply it consistently without creating avoidable handoffs or duplicate work? |
| Implementation cost and measurable value | What implementation, training, and ongoing effort will the firm bear? What baseline will it compare against, and which outcomes—such as turnaround time, quality, cost, or client value—matter? |
| Client and business-model fit | How will the firm explain the role and limits of the tool to clients? How should fees reflect the work and value delivered, and how will the firm maintain supervision and lawyer development? |
In its 2024 AI survey article, the ABA reported that 74.7% of respondents identified accuracy as a leading concern, 56.3% cited reliability, and 47.2% cited data privacy and security. The same article reported implementation cost (22.1%) and time to learn tools (21.3%) as concerns. These are survey responses, not a technical assessment of any individual product.
How do law firms choose legal software?
A bounded pilot is more informative than a broad promise to “use AI.” It gives the firm a defined workflow, a way to check quality, and a decision point before wider deployment.
- Choose one workflow. Name the task, the users, the matter types in scope, and the process the tool is intended to change.
- Set the baseline. Record how the work is handled now and select measures that match the intended benefit, such as turnaround time, quality, cost, or client value.
- Define permitted inputs and uses. Specify what data may be submitted, what tasks are permitted, and which uses are excluded from the pilot.
- Assign ownership and review. Name the responsible owner and the qualified lawyer who will review outputs. Decide how users will flag errors and escalate concerns.
- Test representative work. Compare outputs with the baseline and verify relevant facts, citations, and documents. Keep vendor claims separate from results the firm observes.
- Make a go/no-go decision. Decide whether the measured benefits, quality, risk controls, integration, and training burden justify continuing, changing the workflow, or stopping.
Thomson Reuters’ 2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market reports that firms with a visible AI strategy were 3.9 times as likely to see at least one form of ROI as firms without significant AI adoption plans. The report attributes the underlying finding to Thomson Reuters’ 2025 Future of Professionals report. This is a reported association, not evidence that a strategy alone causes ROI; a firm still needs to measure its own results.
Rank #4
What are the risks of AI tools for lawyers?
The central risks are not limited to whether a system produces a plausible answer. A firm must consider the quality and reliability of outputs, handling of confidential information, security and privacy controls, fit with its workflow, and whether users know when and how to review results. A product’s presence in a survey or its vendor’s claims do not establish that it meets the firm’s requirements.
Governance must also account for tools people already use. Thomson Reuters’ 2026 legal report found unauthorized AI use among respondents, while warning that adoption outpacing governance can create operational, compliance, and client risks. The survey finding does not show that every unauthorized use caused harm; it does make actual use a governance question rather than a purely procurement question.
Make the approved-tool policy usable
- Identify approved tools and the tasks for which they may be used.
- Define what kinds of information users may submit and what uses are prohibited.
- Assign responsibility for reviewing work and escalating errors or security concerns.
- Train lawyers and staff on permitted use, limitations, and review expectations.
- Periodically check actual use and update policy as workflows or tools change.
These controls should be tailored to the firm’s own obligations and systems. The cited survey evidence records concern about privacy and security; it does not determine whether a particular product satisfies a firm’s legal, ethical, or contractual requirements.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How will adoption affect clients, pricing, and legal talent?
Technology decisions affect the firm’s commercial model as well as its IT stack. In Thomson Reuters’ 2026 Legal Future of Professionals report, 22% of surveyed in-house legal professionals said they would reconsider firm relationships within 12 months if they did not see AI-enabled value, in addition to 11% who were already doing so. The report also found that 71% expected professional firms to change their commercial model as AI use increased, while 62% of law-firm professionals said their firms’ pricing structures were unchanged in response to AI. These are distinct responses from the report’s surveyed populations; they do not establish that a particular pricing change is right for every matter.
Firms need to decide how to explain technology’s role, quality controls, and client value, and how their fees reflect the work performed. Talent development belongs in the same discussion: if a tool changes how routine work is done, leaders should consider how junior lawyers will continue to build the judgment and skills needed for more complex work.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteThe Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2026 Stand-out Lawyers report drew on 116 interviews with law-firm leaders and managing partners and 2,527 interviews with stand-out lawyers. It describes a gap between firms having an AI strategy and translating it into partner-level practice and client value. Its recommendations include giving partners information for client conversations, examples, approved language about risks and limitations, and billing guidance.
What this means for a law firm considering a new vendor
The rise of legal technology is best understood as a set of changing capabilities and adoption choices, not as proof that a particular startup or product is ready for every firm. A firm can make a sound decision by connecting a tool to a specific workflow, setting review and data controls, involving the lawyers and staff who will use it, and judging outcomes against a baseline. Client communication, pricing, and talent development should be considered alongside procurement, because they determine whether a technical change becomes useful legal service.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
