‘We believe in being ahead of the curve’: how lawyers perceive AI

As the debate sparked by the rise of advanced technology continues, how exactly are lawyers using AI tools and what are the challenges? Marisa Woutersen finds out.

Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform every sector and has particularly taken the legal industry by storm, creating a dramatic shift in the way lawyers work.

The technology has already shown great potential for enhancing IP services when automating laborious manual tasks, improving productivity and accelerating research.

Tools such as Solve Intelligence, Robin AI, and ChatGPT and firms such as Allen & Overy, which partnered with the platform Harvey are changing the game.

For solo practitioners and small boutique firms, AI offers a way to handle a greater volume of work—allowing them to compete with larger firms within the industry.

Meanwhile, large, international law firms increasingly face clients who expect and demand that they adopt AI to compete in a fast-moving market.

Arun Hill, senior consultant for the Clarivate Center for IP and Innovation Research, says IP professionals "should have a seat at the table in AI development—and there's still time to make those changes.”

Feelings towards AI

Hill believes that empowering legal professionals to feel they can actively join discussions about AI instead of feeling it's forced upon them is crucial, as much of the AI “scare mongering” comes from a dearth of knowledge.

“People feel like it's something they'll wake up to one day, and they'll be told they have to use and they might not want to—or might not agree necessarily with their ethics,” he explains.

Establishing trust and responsibility in AI systems, he adds, comes from adopting a human-centered design approach and involving attorneys in the process.

“It doesn't matter how good an AI application is, if you don't trust it and don't want to use it, its efficiency is lost,” argues Hill.

According to a report, published by Clarivate in October 2023, attorneys and those working in a law firm showed reluctance in adopting AI now and in the future—especially when compared to R&D counterparts.

When asked about current AI adoption, 71% of law firm respondents said they don't use AI at all.

Tasks such as IP renewals, payments, and trademark availability research were viewed as appropriate for AI assistance (with 61% and 75% of respondents showing interest) while 83% of law firm respondents were excited about using AI for manual tasks.

However, activities such as prosecution involving IPOs and drafting were deemed less suitable for AI adoption by 49% and 39% of law firm respondents.

The main concerns expressed by law firms regarding AI adoption concerned the accuracy of results (89%) and the reliability and trustworthiness of automated decisions (87%).

The results show that while AI may not be widely used in firms due to accuracy concerns, there is some potential for it when it comes to easily automated, manual tasks that are low risk, says Hill.

A real game-changer

Peter Van Dyck, partner at Allen & Overy, who uses the AI assistant, Harvey, believes firms that those who don’t engage with AI are making a “mistake”.

“We’ve always believed in being ahead of the curve and in the idea that you need to adapt as a firm to move with the times,” he says.

Van Dyck uses Harvey for initial research, specifically in unfamiliar areas of law or multi-jurisdictional cases to get a sense of direction.

He also uses the tool to assist in drafting contracts by providing alternative clauses, helping to innovate and improve the drafting process, which, he adds, can be useful for even the most experienced lawyers.

Finally, Harvey is used for document summarisation as it can generate initial bullet points that the user can review and refine.

The tool is described as an “efficiency gain”, yet Van Dyck stresses that it is not foolproof and can still generate ‘hallucinations’ so it is used more as a co-pilot with human review.

Van Dyck explains the firm's internal development of a tool, called the Contract Matrix, demonstrates how AI can review and redraft clauses based on approved legal precedents, creating efficiency and consistency in contract review processes.

Concern over accuracy and confidentiality could contribute to lawyers being hesitant to adopt AI , explains Van Dyck.

To address these misgivings, Van Dyck says his firm creates an “enormous amount of awareness, training, and provides strict guidelines for AI use”.

While Van Dyck feels there is currently no direct pressure from clients to adopt AI tools, he predicts that “it will be coming at some point”.

The firm's proactive integration of AI has been positively received by clients, who value the innovation and efficiency it brings, he adds.

Efficiency and speed

Solve Intelligence, founded by the trio Chris Parsonson, Sanj Ahilan, and Angus Parsonson, uses AI to write patents.

The tool addresses issues in the patent drafting process, starting from invention disclosure to application drafting.

It demonstrates the efficiency and quality improvements brought by AI assistance in drafting patent applications, including analysing prior art, identifying novelty, drafting application sections, and reviewing for errors.

The tool allows attorneys to spend more time on strategic considerations, improving the quality of service provided to clients, explains (Chris) Parsonson.

The two main reasons lawyers are using Solve Intelligence is for improved efficiency and quality.

“If you're using AI to do all the heavy lifting, it can take away a lot of the sort of laborious manual work for the attorney,” says Parsonson.

“An attorney can spend more time thinking about how to draft a set of claims, what kinds of things should be included in those claims, from a strategic point of view, and then get the AI to, take a set of claims and draft a detailed description—the bulk volume of the of the application,” he explains.

AI can also help review an application, catch basic errors, and ensure the application is written in the attorney's unique style.

“Every attorney, when they work in different jurisdictions, different clients, and so on, has very different styles of drafting applications and AI can help enforce some of these quality standards,” notes Parsonson.

Solve Intelligence serves clients of different sizes, but specifically solo practitioners who may be more constrained can use AI to increase capacity and take on more clients, and improve tasks such as drafting speed.

Parsonson explains the tool can increase a firm's appeal by reducing the time burden on inventors and clients.

Effective use

The patent drafting process involves lengthy back-and-forth interactions with attorneys—deterring inventors from pursuing patents due to the time commitment involved—but AI tools such as Solve Intelligence streamline this process.

Volkan Hamamcıoğlu, founder of the boutique firm InPeraIP, uses Solve Intelligence among other AI tools as a way to save time, given their limited resources and small team.

Hamamcıoğlu says the tool has reduced his patent application drafting time from 20 to 10 hours.

The firm also uses other AI tools for tasks such as patentability searches which has also improved their efficiency as they can conduct searches in half the time.

Despite acknowledging the advantages of using AI for a small firm, Hamamcıoğlu highlighted that their high cost remained a challenge.

However, as more firms adopt AI, clients may come to expect its use as standard practice, particularly for tasks where AI can offer cost-effective solutions, suggests Van Dyck.

To implement tools appropriately, Van Dyck recommends ensuring the AI tool prioritises client confidentiality. He also suggests creating clearly defined guidelines for its use and, crucially, rolling out AI awareness programmes and training for employees.