She reveals some misconceptions legal professionals have about AI’s use in law
This month, legal tech company AI Legal Assistant kickstarts its landmark partnership with the ACT Bar Association to provide barristers with training on AI use – a partnership that represents the first formal endorsement of an AI platform for professional development by an Australian bar.
In the first part of this chat with Australasian Lawyer, AI Legal Assistant COO Bec Robertson shares how she intends to apply her law and AI experience to this partnership, and discusses the role of law societies and bar associations in driving AI use in the profession.
What are the biggest challenges law firms and organisations face when it comes to AI use in law?
Not understanding that the underlying values around legal services delivery need to change before you implement AI. Many firms and organisations try to bolt on AI but wonder why it fails. Before you can implement AI, you need to understand that it will change your service delivery model and this involves a realignment of your values around how legal services are performed.
What are some misconceptions you think legal professionals have about the use of AI in law, and how would you correct them?
Where I see a lot of misconception is people assuming AI is a legal tech tool. It’s not – it’s a labour and resourcing tool. The right legal AI allows you to double the output of your team without increasing headcount. This offers benefits in terms of efficiency, profitability, and resource management, as well as reducing cognitive load and hours worked for legal professionals. Wellbeing programs attempted to boost mental health for the profession, but they didn’t have a significant enough impact because the workload was still there. With legal AI, we can actually make a serious dent in the workload and give legal professionals a better worklife.
Other misconceptions I see: that all legal AI tools are the same. There’s a big difference between a chat-based feature in a PMS versus a comprehensive AI-first platform that can perform legal workflows across all practice areas. People often go for price or brand name, without truly evaluating the impact of the tool and whether it’s actually going to lead to a statistically significant, more efficient outcome when evaluated on objective measures. We show people how to conduct objective evaluations of tools based on measurable outcomes.
Finally, I still see law firms believing that data residency is a cure-all for security.
What are some legislative considerations for Australia and New Zealand governments in light of the AI boom?
I don’t think we need legislation, but we do need law societies and bar associations to amend CPD rules to require AI education as a compulsory component of CPD. AI has become such a fundamental aspect of legal practice that it should be included alongside ethics and other compulsory topics. I’m also advocating for changes to practical legal training, practice management and stepping up course rules to require compulsory modules on legal AI.
How do you plan to use your experience in both law and AI to guide this partnership with the ACT Bar Association?
I will serve the intent of this partnership by promoting education as the first line of defence against misuse of AI. I honestly don’t believe any lawyer or barrister has misused AI intentionally; there’s just a lot for them to learn. So the goal is widespread education for the entire legal industry.
However, we need more than just surface-level education; it is essential to provide in-depth applied skills training, and this training must occur regularly to keep up with the rapid updates in legal AI. Practitioners who undergo extensive AI enablement sessions produce work of a higher quality, with more accuracy and at a faster pace. They are also more confident in their verification of AI output. I’d be happy to show any practitioner how this might work for them in practice.
