Trending Now
Commercial Legal Innovation

Navigating the Legal Landscape: Best Practices for Implementing AI

By Anthony Johnson |
June 24, 2024

Navigating the Legal Landscape: Best Practices for Implementing AI

The following article was contributed by Anthony Johnson, CEO of the Johnson Firm and Stellium.

The ascent of AI in law firms has thrust the intricate web of complexities and legal issues surrounding their implementation into the spotlight. As law firms grapple with the delicate balance between innovation and ethical considerations, they are tasked with navigating the minefield of AI ethics, AI bias, and synthetic data. Nevertheless, within these formidable challenges, law firms are presented with a singular and unparalleled opportunity to shape the landscape of AI law, copyright ownership decisively, and AI human rights.

Conducting Due Diligence on AI Technologies

Law firms embarking on the integration of AI into their practices must commence with conducting comprehensive due diligence. This process entails a precise evaluation of the AI technology’s origins, development process, and the integrity of the data utilized for training. Safeguarding that the AI systems adopted must be meticulously developed with legally sourced and unbiased data sets. This measure is the linchpin in averting potential ethical or legal repercussions. It is especially paramount to be acutely mindful of the perils posed by AI bias and AI hallucination, both of which have the potential to undermine the fairness and credibility of legal outcomes.

Guidelines must decisively address the responsible use of AI, encompassing critical issues related to AI ethics, AI law, and copyright ownership. Furthermore, defining the scope of AI’s decision-making power within legal cases is essential to avert any over-reliance on automated processes. By setting these boundaries, law firms demonstrate compliance with existing legal standards and actively shape the development of new norms in the rapidly evolving realm of legal AI.

Training and Awareness Programs for Lawyers

Implementing AI tech in law firms isn’t just a technical challenge; it’s also a cultural shift. Regular training and awareness programs must be conducted to ensure responsible and effective use. These programs should focus on legal tech training, providing lawyers and legal staff with a deep understanding of AI capabilities and limitations. Addressing ethical AI use and the implications of AI on human rights in daily legal tasks is also required. Empowering legal teams with knowledge and tools will enhance their technological competence and drive positive change.

Risks and Ethical Considerations of Using AI in Legal Practices

Confidentiality and Data Privacy Concerns

The integration of AI within legal practices presents substantial risks concerning confidentiality and data privacy. Law firms entrusted with handling sensitive information must confront the stark reality that the deployment of AI technologies directly threatens client confidentiality if mishandled. AI systems’ insatiable appetite for large datasets during training lays bare the potential for exposing personal client data to unauthorized access or breaches. Without question, unwaveringly robust data protection measures must be enacted to safeguard trust and uphold the legal standards of confidentiality.

Intellectual Property and Copyright Issues

The pivotal role of AI in content generation has ignited intricate debates surrounding intellectual property rights and copyright ownership. As AI systems craft documents and materials, determining rightful ownership—be it the AI, the developer, or the law firm—emerges as a fiercely contested matter. This not only presents legal hurdles but also engenders profound ethical deliberations concerning the attribution and commercialization of AI-generated content within the legal domain.

Bias and Discrimination in AI Outputs

The critical risk looms large: the potential for AI to perpetuate or even exacerbate biases. AI systems, mere reflections of the data they are trained on, stand as monuments to the skewed training materials that breed discriminatory outcomes. This concern is especially poignant in legal practices, where the mandate for fair and impartial decisions reigns supreme. Addressing AI bias is not just important; it is imperative to prevent the unjust treatment of individuals based on flawed or biased AI assessments, thereby upholding the irrefutable principles of justice and equality in legal proceedings.

Worst Case Scenarios: The Legal Risks and Pitfalls of Misusing AI

Violations of Client Confidentiality

The most egregious risk lies in the potential violation of client confidentiality. Law firms that dare to integrate AI tools must guarantee that these systems are absolutely impervious to breaches that could compromise sensitive information. Without the most stringent security measures, AI dares to inadvertently leak client data, resulting in severe legal repercussions and the irrevocable loss of client trust. This scenario emphatically underscores the necessity for robust data protection protocols in all AI deployments.

Intellectual Property Issues

The misuse of AI inevitably leads to intricate intellectual property disputes. As AI systems possess the capability to generate legal documents and other intellectual outputs, the question of copyright ownership—whether it pertains to the AI, the law firm, or the original data providers—becomes a source of contention. Mismanagement in this domain can precipitate costly litigation, thrusting law firms into the task of navigating a labyrinth of AI law and copyright ownership issues. It is important that firms assertively delineate ownership rights in their AI deployment strategies to circumvent these potential pitfalls preemptively.

Ethical Breaches and Professional Misconduct

The reckless application of AI in legal practices invites ethical breaches and professional misconduct. Unmonitored AI systems presume to make decisions, potentially flouting the ethical standards decreed by legal authorities. The specter of AI bias looms large, capable of distorting decision-making in an unjust and discriminatory manner. Law firms must enforce stringent guidelines and conduct routine audits of their AI tools to uphold ethical compliance, thereby averting any semblance of professional misconduct that could mar their esteemed reputation and credibility.

Case Studies: Success and Cautionary Tales in AI Implementation

Successful AI Integrations in Law Firms

The legal industry has witnessed numerous triumphant AI integrations that have set the gold standard for technology adoption, unequivocally elevating efficiency and accuracy. Take, for example, a prominent U.S. law firm that fearlessly harnessed AI to automate document analysis for litigation cases, substantially reducing lawyers’ document review time while magnifying the precision of findings. Not only did this optimization revolutionize the workflow, but it also empowered attorneys to concentrate on more strategic tasks, thereby enhancing client service and firm profitability. In another case, an international law firm adopted AI-driven predictive analytics to forecast litigation outcomes. This tool provided unprecedented precision in advising clients on the feasibility of pursuing or settling cases, strengthening client trust and firm reputation. These examples highlight the transformative potential of AI when integrated into legal frameworks.

Conclusion

Integrating AI within the legal sector is an urgent reality that law firms cannot ignore. While the ascent of AI presents complex challenges, it also offers an unparalleled opportunity to shape AI law, copyright ownership, and AI human rights. To successfully implement AI in legal practices, due diligence on AI technologies, training programs for lawyers, and establishing clear guidelines and ethical standards are crucial. However, risks and moral considerations must be carefully addressed, such as confidentiality and data privacy concerns, intellectual property and copyright issues, and bias and discrimination in AI outputs. Failure to do so can lead to violations of client confidentiality and costly intellectual property disputes. By navigating these risks and pitfalls, law firms can harness the transformative power of AI while upholding legal standards and ensuring a fair and just legal system.

Secure Your Funding Below
Secure Your Funding Sidebar

About the author

Anthony Johnson

Anthony Johnson

Commercial

View All
Case Developments Commercial

Uber Told £340m Group Claim Must Follow Costs Budgeting Rules

By John Freund |

In a notable ruling, the High Court has directed that a £340 million group action against Uber London Ltd will be subject to costs budgeting, despite the claim’s substantial size. The decision was handed down in the case of White & Ors v Uber London Ltd & Ors, where the total value of the claim far exceeds the £10 million threshold above which costs budgeting is typically not required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

According to Law Gazette, Mrs Justice O’Farrell chose to exercise judicial discretion to apply the budgeting regime. Her decision marks a significant moment for large-scale group litigation in England and Wales, underscoring the court’s growing interest in ensuring proportionality and transparency of legal costs—even in high-value cases.

An article in the Law Society Gazette reports that the ruling means the parties must now submit detailed estimates of incurred and anticipated legal costs, which will be reviewed and approved by the court. This move imposes a degree of cost control typically absent from group claims of this scale and signals a potential shift in how such cases are managed procedurally.

The decision carries important implications for the litigation funding industry. Funders underwriting group claims can no longer assume exemption from cost control measures based on claim size alone. The presence of court-approved cost budgets may impact the funders’ risk analysis and return expectations, potentially reshaping deal terms in high-value group actions. This development could prompt more cautious engagement from funders and a closer examination of litigation strategy in similar collective proceedings moving forward.

Commercial

Will Law Firms Become the Biggest Power Users of AI Voice Agents?

By Kris Altiere |

The following article was contributed by Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing for Moneypenny.

A new cross-industry study from Moneypenny suggests that while some sectors are treading carefully with AI-powered voice technology, the legal industry is emerging as a surprisingly enthusiastic adopter. In fact, 74% of legal firms surveyed said they are already embracing AI Voice Agents , the highest adoption rate across all industries polled.

This may seem counterintuitive for a profession built on human judgement, nuance and discretion. But the research highlights a growing shift: law firms are leaning on AI not to replace human contact, but to protect it.

Why Legal Is Leaning In: Efficiency Without Eroding Trust

Legal respondents identified labor savings (50%) as the most compelling benefit of AI Voice Agents.  But behind that topline number sits a deeper story:

  • Firms are increasingly flooded with routine enquiries.
  • Clients still expect immediate, professional responses.
  • Staff time is too valuable to spend triaging logistics.

Kris Altiere, US Head of Marketing at Moneypenny, said:
“Some companies and callers are understandably a little nervous about how AI Voice Agents might change the call experience. That’s why it’s so important to design them carefully so interactions feel personal, relevant, and tailored to the specific industry and situation. By taking on the routine parts of a call, an AI agent frees up real people to handle the conversations that are more complex, sensitive, or high-value.”

For the legal sector, that balance is particularly valuable.

A Look At Other Industries

Hospitality stands out as the most reluctant adopter, with only 22% of companies using AI-powered virtual reception for inbound calls and 43% exploring AI Voice Agents.
By contrast, the legal sector’s 74% engagement suggests a profession increasingly comfortable pairing traditional client care with modern efficiency.

The difference stems from call types: whereas hospitality relies heavily on emotional warmth, legal calls hinge on accuracy, confidentiality, and rapid routing areas where well-calibrated AI excels.

What Legal Firms Want Most From AI Voice Agents

The research reveals where legal sees the greatest potential for AI voice technology:

  • Healthcare: faster response times (75%)
  • Hospitality: reducing service costs (67%)
  • Real estate: enhanced call quality and lead qualification (50%)
  • Finance: 24/7 availability (45%), improved caller satisfaction (44%), scalability (43%)

Legal’s top future use case is appointment management (53%).

This aligns neatly with the administrative pain points most firms face,  juggling court dates, consultations and multi-lawyer calendars.

Each industry also had high expectations for AI Voice Agent features, from natural interruption handling to configurable escalation rules.
For legal, data security and compliance topped the list at 63%.

This security-first mindset is unsurprising in a sector where reputation and confidentiality are non-negotiable.

Among legal companies, 42% said that integration with existing IT systems like CRM or helpdesk tools was critical.

This points to a broader shift: law firms increasingly want AI not just as a call handler but as part of the client-intake and workflow ecosystem.

The Bigger Trend: AI to Protect Human Time

Across every industry surveyed, one theme is emerging: companies don’t want AI to replace humans ,they want it to give humans back the time to handle what matters.

For legal teams, this means freeing lawyers and support staff from constant call-handling so they can focus on high-value, sensitive work.

Why This Matters for Law Firms in 2025

The AI adoption race in legal is no longer about novelty; it’s about staying competitive.

Clients expect real-time responses, yet firms are constrained by staffing and increasing administrative load. Well-designed AI Voice Agents offer a way to protect responsiveness without compromising on professionalism or security.

With compliance pressures rising, talent shortages ongoing, and client acquisition becoming more competitive, the research suggests law firms are turning to AI as a strategic solution and not a shortcut.

Moneypenny’s Perspective

Moneypenny, a leader in customer communication solutions, recently launched its new AI Voice Agent following the success of an extensive beta program. The next-generation virtual assistant speaks naturally with callers, giving businesses greater flexibility in how they manage customer conversations.

Commercial Regulatory Issues

LSB Launches Oversight Programme Targeting Litigation Growth

By John Freund |

The Legal Services Board (LSB) has unveiled a new consumer‑protection initiative to address mounting concerns in the UK legal market linked to volume litigation, law‑firm consolidators and unregulated service providers. An article in Legal Futures reports that the regulator cited “clear evidence” of risks to consumers arising from the dramatic growth of volume litigation, pointing in particular to the collapse of firms such as SSB Law.

Legal Futures reports that under the programme, the LSB will explore whether the current regulatory framework adequately protects consumers from harm in mass‑litigation contexts. That includes examining: whether all litigation funding – especially portfolio funding models – should fall under the supervision of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA); whether co‑regulation arrangements should be established between the FCA and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA); and whether the list of reserved legal activities needs revision to account for the rise of unregulated providers and AI‑enabled legal services.

On the law‑firm side the initiative spotlights the consolidation trend — especially accumulator or “consolidator” firms backed by private equity and acquiring large numbers of clients. The LSB flagged risks around viability, quality of client care and short‑term investor‑driven growth at the expense of compliance and long‑term service stability.

For the litigation‑funding sector, the message is unmistakable: the regulator will be more active in mapping the relationships between funders, law firms and client outcomes. It intends to use its market‑intelligence function to monitor whether misaligned incentives in the funding‑chain may harm consumers, and to obtain data from frontline regulators where necessary.