What Percent of Law Firms Use AI? Rundown for 2025

Quick Answer (TL, DR)

The answer to what percent of law firms use AI depends on how you measure it. Recent surveys show anywhere from 21% to 80% adoption rates across legal practices.

The most accurate picture shows about 30% of law firms have formally adopted AI tools, while individual lawyers using AI on their own push that number closer to 80%.

Large firms with 50+ attorneys lead at 39% adoption. Small practices and solo practitioners sit around 18-20%.

The gap between these numbers tells you something important. Many lawyers are already using AI tools like ChatGPT without their firm’s official approval or support.

This creates security risks and missed opportunities for practices that haven’t created formal AI strategies.

Understanding the Question

You’ll see wildly different statistics about law firm AI adoption because researchers measure different things.

Some surveys count any lawyer who has ever typed a question into ChatGPT. Others only count firms that invested in enterprise legal AI platforms with proper security and training.

Some include free tools. Others focus on paid legal-specific software.

The question “what percent of law firms use ai?” actually breaks down into three separate questions. Are we talking about individual lawyers experimenting with free tools?

Firms with official AI policies and training programs?

Or practices that have fully integrated AI into their daily workflows?

Each level shows dramatically different adoption rates.

Detailed Explanation: The Real Numbers Behind AI Adoption

The Individual vs. Firm Split

Here’s where things get interesting. About 31% of individual legal professionals actively use AI tools in their work.

Among those users, 45% use AI daily and 40% use it weekly.

But only 21% of law firms report official organizational adoption.

This gap reveals a problem. Lawyers are testing AI tools on their own, often using free versions of consumer products their firms haven’t vetted or secured. Your colleague might be copying client information into ChatGPT while your firm’s IT department has no idea it’s happening.

Firm Size Makes All the Difference

The percent of law firms using AI changes dramatically based on how many attorneys work there.

Large firms (51+ attorneys): 39% adoption rate

Mid-sized firms (10-49 attorneys): 30% adoption rate

Small firms (2-9 attorneys): 18-20% adoption rate

Solo practitioners: 18% adoption rate

The cost barrier explains most of this gap. Enterprise AI platforms designed for legal work charge thousands per month.

Large firms split that cost across dozens of lawyers.

Solo practitioners absorb the entire expense themselves.

This contradicts the early promise that AI would level the playing field between big law and small practices.

Practice Area Breakdown

Immigration lawyers lead individual AI adoption at 47%. Personal injury attorneys come in at 37%, followed by civil litigation at 36%.

But when you look at firm-wide adoption, civil litigation practices lead at 27%. This suggests solo immigration attorneys are experimenting with AI more than immigration firms are officially adopting it.

The pattern shows up across practice areas. Individual lawyers are moving faster than their firms.

Geographic Differences

UK lawyers have raced ahead of American attorneys. By mid-2025, 61% of UK legal professionals were using AI tools regularly.

The US sits closer to 30% for firm-wide adoption.

Regional regulations and firm culture explain some of this gap. European law firms appear more comfortable with rapid technology adoption than their American counterparts.

Key Points: What’s Actually Happening

Let me break down the adoption landscape into three tiers that make sense of the conflicting statistics.

Tier 1, Experimental Use: Lawyers using ChatGPT or similar tools without firm approval. This represents roughly 30% of all legal professionals.

Tier 2, Formal Adoption: Firms with approved AI policies, designated tools, and training programs. About 20-30% of practices sit here.

Tier 3, Mature Integration: Firms where AI is embedded into workflows, billing systems, and client delivery. Only 5-10% of firms have reached this level.

Most surveys showing 70-80% adoption are counting Tier 1 users. Surveys showing 20-30% are counting Tier 2 and 3 organizations.

Both numbers are accurate for what they’re measuring.

What Lawyers Actually Use AI For

Legal professionals report using AI most often for:

• Drafting correspondence and emails (54% of users)
• Brainstorming legal strategies (47%)
• General legal research (46%)
• Contract drafting and review (56% of in-house teams)
• Document analysis and summarization

They avoid AI for:

• Client-facing strategic advice (only 14% use AI here)
• Business development (6-30% depending on firm size)
• High-stakes litigation decisions

The pattern makes sense. Lawyers trust AI to speed up routine work but hesitate before letting it influence major client decisions.

Firm Size	AI Adoption Rate	Most Common Tools	Primary Use Case
Large Firms (51+ attorneys)	39%	Thomson Reuters CoCounsel, Lexis+ AI, Harvey AI	Legal research, contract analysis
Mid-sized Firms (10-49 attorneys)	30%	Mix of ChatGPT and legal-specific tools	Document drafting, research
Small Firms (2-9 attorneys)	18-20%	ChatGPT (64%), Clio Duo	Email drafting, basic research
Solo Practitioners	18%	Free tools (ChatGPT primarily)	Correspondence, ideation

Examples and Case Studies

The Time Savings Reality

Legal professionals using AI report specific time savings that add up fast. About 65% of AI users save 1-5 hours per week.

Another 12% reclaim 6-10 hours weekly.

For a lawyer billing $300 per hour, saving even 3 hours per week means $46,800 in extra annual billable time. For practices running on fixed fees or choice billing arrangements, those hours mean leaving the office earlier or taking on more clients.

The Billing Model Disconnect

Here’s where it gets uncomfortable. About 79% of law firms actively use AI tools, but 58% aren’t passing any cost savings to clients.

Even worse, 34% are charging clients more for AI-assisted work than they charged for the same work done manually.

Only 6% of firms using AI have reduced their rates to reflect the efficiency gains.

This creates tension with corporate clients who see the headlines about AI transforming legal work but don’t see lower bills. Many in-house legal departments are now building their own AI capabilities specifically because their outside counsel won’t share the productivity gains.

The Training Gap Problem

Only 16% of in-house legal teams report receiving adequate AI training from their employers. But 100% of those teams continue using AI anyway.

This training gap creates liability risks. Lawyers who don’t understand AI’s limitations are more likely to miss the hallucinated case citations or rely on incorrect legal summaries without verification.

Expert Insights: Where This Is Heading

Legal professionals expect rapid change ahead. About 53% of solo practitioners believe AI will reach mainstream adoption in their practice area within three years.

Larger firms are slightly more conservative at 40% expecting mainstream adoption in that timeframe.

Only 9% of lawyers think AI adoption will take more than five years.

But confidence levels vary dramatically based on which tools lawyers use. About 88% of lawyers using legal-specific AI platforms like Lexis+ AI or CoCounsel feel confident in the output.

General-purpose tools like ChatGPT generate much less confidence.

The lesson here is clear. Using AI built specifically for legal work with proper training creates confident users.

Letting lawyers experiment with free consumer tools creates anxiety and errors.

The Accuracy Concern

About 75% of legal professionals cite accuracy as their top AI concern, up from 58% just two years ago.

Lawyers have learned through painful experience that AI can generate convincing citations to cases that don’t exist. It can misstate holdings or overlook crucial distinctions between cases.

These aren’t rare edge cases. They happen regularly enough that every major legal ethics organization has issued guidance about the need to verify AI output.

Security and Privacy Fears

Data privacy concerns affect 47% of lawyers considering AI adoption. Interestingly, solo practitioners worry less (24%) than large firm lawyers (54%).

The irony here cuts deep. Small practices face greater risks from data breaches but have less security infrastructure to protect themselves.

Large firms understand the risk better but that understanding sometimes paralyzes decision-making.

About 83% of in-house lawyers use AI tools their companies didn’t provide or approve. This shadow AI adoption represents the biggest security risk most firms face right now.

Additional Resources: Making Sense of Your Options

Which Tools Lead the Market

Large firms favor Thomson Reuters CoCounsel (26% usage rate) and Lexis+ AI (24% usage rate). Both tools connect to massive verified legal databases and include safeguards against hallucination.

Harvey AI has captured about 6% of the large firm market with its specialized litigation focus.

Small firms and solo practitioners overwhelmingly choose ChatGPT (64% of 2-9 attorney firms). The zero cost makes it accessible, but the lack of legal-specific training and verification features creates risks.

The Implementation Cost Reality

Legal-specific AI platforms typically charge $50-150 per user per month. Enterprise implementations at large firms often need custom integration work that adds tens of thousands in upfront costs.

About 39% of firms cite implementation costs as a barrier to adoption. Another 38% report lacking adequate IT infrastructure to support AI tools.

These barriers are real but often overstated. The ROI from time savings usually pays back the investment within 3-6 months for lawyers who fully adopt the tools.

Policy and Governance Frameworks

About 47% of legal organizations lack formal AI policies. This gap creates exposure when individual lawyers use unapproved tools or when clients ask how their confidential information is being handled.

Every firm using AI needs written policies covering:

• Which tools are approved for use
• What types of information can be input into AI systems
• Verification requirements for AI-generated work
• Client disclosure obligations
• Training requirements for lawyers using AI

Building these policies takes time but protects you from ethical complaints and malpractice claims.

Conclusion

The answer to how many firms that are using AI keeps changing month to month. Individual adoption is racing ahead while organizational adoption lags behind.

The meaningful metric isn’t the overall percentage. What matters is whether your firm will lead this transition or get left behind.

Lawyers using AI are reclaiming hours every week. Firms with formal AI strategies are attracting better talent and winning more sophisticated clients.

Practices that ignore AI risk losing competitive position that may never be recovered.

The question isn’t whether AI adoption will speed up. The data shows it clearly will.

The question is whether you’ll apply it strategically or watch your competitors pull ahead.

👉 Ready to stop experimenting and start implementing? Legal-specific AI platforms like Thomson Reuters CoCounsel, Lexis+ AI, and Clio Duo offer the security, training, and support your firm needs for responsible AI adoption. See our list of the top AI tools being used right now by law firms

Frequently Asked Questions