ANALYSIS: Generative AI in Legal Practice—Who’s Using It and How

The legal profession has long been seen as an elite and intellectually demanding field, reserved for the sharpest minds who could pass the LSAT, survive law school, and clear the bar exam. With such high barriers to entry, the idea that technology, let alone artificial intelligence, could ever perform legal tasks was once unthinkable.

But that narrative is shifting. Tools like ChatGPT have demonstrated the ability to pass the bar exam in record time, challenging assumptions about what it takes to “think and perform like a lawyer.”

Today, nearly every legal tech solution incorporates some form of machine learning or generative AI—not to replace lawyers, but to augment their capabilities. Although the legal industry has historically been cautious about adopting new technologies due to compliance obligations, ethical considerations, and fears of obsolescence, it now finds itself at a pivotal moment.

AI is no longer theoretical; it is being actively itemized, piloted, and deployed to make legal work faster, smarter, and more strategic. AI has come to the point where it can now be meaningfully and responsibly applied to legal practice.

How Lawyers Are Using AI

Earlier this year, Bloomberg Law surveyed in-house and law firm attorneys about their use of generative AI—specifically, whether they have used it in their legal practices, and, if so, in what ways. According to survey results, 63% of all survey respondents reported that they have used AI in some way for work.

The most common use case among lawyers who have used generative AI for work is legal research, a clear application that minimizes risk exposure for attorneys while addressing a time-consuming aspect of legal work.

Other notable use cases include drafting or templating communications such as memos, emails, or correspondence with opposing counsel (used by 39% of respondents); summarizing legal narratives like case law (37%); and reviewing legal documents (30%).

However, when it comes to more advanced tasks, such as contract negotiation or drafting legal agreements and securities filings, the vast majority of respondents haven’t adopted AI tools. Tasks like these, which involve deeper legal reasoning or complex judgment, are still mostly being done without help from AI, probably due to valid concerns about data security, compliance, and professional responsibility in this still-evolving technological field.

AI Adoption Spans Entire Legal Career

One interesting—and perhaps even surprising—takeaway that stands out in the survey results is that lawyers with all levels of legal experience are using generative AI in their work. While adoption is highest among mid-career attorneys, the use of generative AI is gaining traction across the entire profession.

Early-career attorneys—those with fewer than five years of experience—reported a 64% adoption rate of generative AI in their work. Usage increases among attorneys with five to nine years of experience, where nearly 80% said they’ve used generative AI, making them the most active users across experience levels.

AI usage rates remain high among attorneys with more than 10 years in practice, ranging from 61% to 73% until they reach the 30-year mark.

And even among those with 30 or more years in practice—the group with the lowest adoption rate—more than half (54%) said they have used AI in their work.

This data shows that generative AI is no longer just a trend or experiment. It is becoming a practical tool integrated into the daily work of attorneys, regardless of where they are in their careers.

Different Applications at Different Stages

To better understand how generative AI is shaping legal practice, these survey results provide insights into how AI adoption varies across different career stages.

It may be tempting to assume that early-career attorneys would be the earliest and most enthusiastic adopters of AI. However, the survey results show a more nuanced reality. Some junior attorneys may hesitate to fully embrace AI due to concerns about accuracy, ethical implications, or how relying on AI might reflect on their competence.

There’s also the question of what AI usage actually measures: whether it reflects active and intentional engagement or simply passive exposure. Foundational tasks typically assigned to junior associates, such as legal research or internal memo drafting, are increasingly being handled or assisted by AI. As a result, junior attorneys may spend more time reviewing and refining AI-generated content rather than producing work from scratch. While this could limit hands-on training in some areas, it may also accelerate development by allowing earlier exposure to higher-level, strategic, or client-facing responsibilities.

Attorneys with five to nine years of experience appear to be the most active adopters of generative AI for a range of practical tasks. For example, they were the group that most commonly reported using AI to draft and template communications, and to summarize legal narratives such as case law. At this career stage, attorneys often balance hands-on work with increasing responsibility, making AI a valuable tool for managing both efficiency and output quality.

Meanwhile, more senior attorneys, those with 15 or more years of experience, often have less time for content creation and are primarily responsible for reviewing others’ work. Their experience allows them to quickly assess the quality of AI-generated outputs, identify potential issues, and validate content with confidence, making AI a time-saver rather than a risk. They also communicate more frequently with senior leadership and clients, and AI can serve as a useful starting point for drafting updates, memos, or emails. This enables them to redirect time toward higher-value activities such as strategic planning, client meetings, and even mentoring junior colleagues.

The survey results show that as legal departments and law firms continue to integrate these tools into their workflows, the question is no longer whether attorneys will embrace AI, but rather how, and under what safeguards and expectations.

The new report, Artificial Intelligence: The Impact on the Legal Industry, is available to subscribers here. Non-subscribers can click here to download the report.

In previous articles in this series: Bloomberg Law Legal Analyst Eleanor Tyler’s July 29 article examined AI slop in litigation and possible remedies. Bloomberg Law Legal Analysts Janet Chanchal’s and Linda Masina’s Aug. 13 piece looked at AI washing and how the legal profession can curb it. Linda Masina’s piece on AI and legal operations will publish next on Aug. 15.

Bloomberg Law subscribers can find a variety of Practical Guidance documents, workflow tools, and reference materials for general corporate governance in our Corporate Governance Practice Center resource. For access to practical guidance relating to cyber governance, visit Bloomberg Law’s Cyber Governance Toolkit page.

If you’re reading this article on the Bloomberg Terminal, please run BLAW OUT to access the hyperlinked content or click here to view the web version of this article.