1932

Abstract

In this review, we explore the impact of technology on US and UK law firms, focusing in particular on the recent machine learning wave of artificial intelligence. Technology has not so far ushered the end of law firms as we know them. Adoption of artificial intelligence/machine learning is in its early stages in the sector, and its impact has been constrained by the scope of use cases for which it is so far well-suited. Technology is nevertheless transforming law firms, in the sense of leading to material changes to their current forms, in the following novel ways: () deployment not only in the back office but in the front office, affecting lawyers’ core tasks of advising clients; () opportunities for lawyers to pursue alternative career paths with different skill sets across the profession; and () emerging options for law firms to adopt business models creating value from nonhuman capital and nonlegal human capital.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074716
2023-10-05
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/19/1/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074716.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074716&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alarie B, Niblett A, Yoon A. 2018. How artificial intelligence will affect the practice of law. Univ. Tor. Law J. 68:Suppl. 1106–24
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Armour J, Parnham R, Sako M. 2021. Unlocking the potential of AI for English law. Int. J. Legal Prof. 28:165–83
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Armour J, Parnham R, Sako M. 2022. Augmented lawyering. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 2022:71–138
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Armour J, Sako M. 2020. AI-enabled business models in legal services: From traditional law firms to next-generation law companies?. J. Prof. Organ. 7:127–46
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Armour J, Sako M. 2023. Lawtech: Levelling the playing field in legal services?. Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice D Engstrom 44–69. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ashley KD. 2018. Automatically extracting meaning from legal texts: opportunities and challenges. Ga. State Univ. Law Rev. 35:41117–52
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baker JJ. 2018. 2018 A legal research odyssey: artificial intelligence as disruptor. Law Libr. J. 110:15–30
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Barley SR. 2020. Work and Technological Change Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barton BH. 2013. The lawyer's monopoly—what goes and what stays. Fordham Law Rev 82:3067–90
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bloomberg Law 2022. 2022 legal ops & tech survey Rep., Bloomberg Law Arlington, VA:
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bonina C, Koskinen K, Eaton B, Gawer A. 2021. Digital platforms for development: foundations and research agenda. Inf. Syst. J. 31:6869–902
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bostick KL. 2012. Pie in the sky: Cloud computing brings an end to the professional paradigm in the practice of law. Buffalo Law Rev 60:51375–416
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Braithwaite WT. 1991. How is technology affecting the practice and profession of law?. Tex. Tech Law Rev. 22:41113–58
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Brivot M, Lam H, Gendron Y. 2014. Digitalization and promotion: an empirical study in a large law firm. Br. J. Manag. 25:4805–18
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brooks C, Gherhes C, Vorley T. 2020. Artificial intelligence in the legal sector: pressures and challenges of transformation. Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 13:1135–52
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brynjolfsson E, Milgrom P 2012. Complementarity in organizations. The Handbook of Organizational Economics R Gibbons, J Roberts 11–55. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brynjolfsson E, Mitchell T. 2017. What can machine learning do? Workforce implications. Science 358:63701530–34
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Callier M, Reeb A. 2015. The industrial age of law: operationalizing legal practice through process improvement. Or. Law Rev. 93:853–80
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ceruzzi P 2013. The historical context. The SAGE Handbook of Digital Technology Research S Price, C Jewitt, B Brown 9–25. London: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Coase RH. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica 4:16386–405
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cook TD, Campbell DT. 1979. Causal interference and the language of experimentation. Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings1–36. Chicago: Rand McNally Coll.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Cooper DJ, Hinings B, Greenwood R, Brown JL. 1996. Sedimentation and transformation in organizational change: the case of Canadian law firms. Organ. Stud. 17:4623–47
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Curran K, McNamee E, McCaroll N, Chaurasia P, McBrearty S. 2019. The security considerations in cloud adoption for legal firms Presented at the ICSET 2019: International Conference on Science, Engineering, and Technology Tel Aviv, Israel: March 29–30
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Cusumano MA, Gawer A, Yoffie DB. 2019. The Business of Platforms: Strategy in the Age of Digital Competition, Innovation, and Power New York: Harper Bus. , 1st ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Danet B, Hoffman KB, Kermish NC. 1980. Obstacles to the study of lawyer-client interaction: the biography of a failure. Law Soc. Rev. 14:905–22
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dashboard Legal 2022. Attorney technology satisfaction survey Rep., Dashboard Legal, New York https://dashboardlegal.com/2022-attorney-technology-satisfaction-survey/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Dzienkowski JS. 2013. The future of big law: alternative legal service providers to corporate clients. Fordham Law Rev 82:62995–3040
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Engstrom DF, Gelbach JB. 2020. Legal tech, civil procedure, and the future of adversarialism. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 169:1001–99
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Faulconbridge J, Henriksen LF, Seabrooke L 2021a. How professional actions connect and protect. J. Prof. Organ. 8:2214–27
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Faulconbridge J, Spring M, Sarwar A 2021b. Next generation professional services: towards AI technology adoption in mid-tier accountancy and law firms Rep., NextGenPSF https://www.nextgenpsf.co.uk/home
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Flood J. 2022. Traditions, symbols, and the challenges of researching the legal profession: the case of the cab rank rule and the Bar's responses. Int. J. Leg. Prof. 29:13–32
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Galanter M, Henderson W. 2008. The elastic tournament: a second transformation of the big law firm. Stanford Law Rev 60:61867–930
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Galanter M, Palay TM. 1990. Why the big get bigger: the promotion-to-partner tournament and the growth of large law firms. Va. Law Rev. 76:4747–811
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Galanter M, Palay T. 1994. Tournament of Lawyers: The Transformation of the Big Law Firm Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gilson RJ. 1990. The devolution of the legal profession: a demand side perspective. Mod. Law Rev. 49:4869–916
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gilson RJ, Mnookin RH. 1984. Sharing among the human capitalists: an economic inquiry into the corporate law firm and how partners split profits. Stanford Law Rev 37:313–92
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Goncharov S 2021. 2021 ABA Legal Technology Survey Report. Chicago: Am. Bar Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Greenwood R, Empson L. 2003. The professional partnership: Relic or exemplary form of governance?. Organ. Stud. 24:6909–33
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Grossman MR, Cormack GV. 2011. Technology-assisted review in E-discovery can be more effective and more efficient than exhaustive manual review. Richmond J. Law Technol. 17:35
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hadfield GK. 2007. Legal barriers to innovation: the growing economic cost of professional control over corporate legal markets. Stanford Law Rev 60:61689–733
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Heinz JP, Laumann EO. 1982. Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar New York: Russell Sage Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Heinz JP, Laumann EO, Nelson RL, Michelson E. 1998. The changing character of lawyers’ work: Chicago in 1975 and 1995. Law Soc. Rev. 32:751–76
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Henderson WD. 2014. From big law to lean law. Int. Rev. Law Econ. 38:Suppl.5–16
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Ho DE, Rubin DB. 2011. Credible causal inference for empirical legal studies. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 7:17–40
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hunter D. 2020. The death of the legal profession and the future of law. Univ. N.S.W. Law J. 43:41199–225
    [Google Scholar]
  46. ILTA (Int. Legal Technol. Assoc.) 2021. ILTA's 2021 technology survey: executive summary Rep., ILTA, Chicago https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/ILTANET/ce7f3e74-fb70-402e-a1b3-5dc0abe72260/UploadedFiles/HSSw0D2FSAy8S6HWWUlp_ExecutiveSummary.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  47. iManage 2022. iManage forms strategic partnership with Microsoft to deliver innovative solutions that drive better outcomes for the legal profession and knowledge workers. GlobeNewswire Febr. 23. https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/02/23/2390146/0/en/iManage-forms-strategic-partnership-with-Microsoft-to-deliver-innovative-solutions-that-drive-better-outcomes-for-the-legal-profession-and-knowledge-workers.html
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Janes SH, Keith P, Dotsika F. 2014. Implementing a social intranet in a professional services environment through Web 2.0 technologies. Learn. Organ. 21:126–47
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Jones JW, Sako M. 2021. Can law firms compete effectively for ALSP services?. Reuters July 9. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/can-law-firms-compete-effectively-alsp-services-2021-07-09/
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Jordan MI, Mitchell TM. 2015. Machine learning: trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science 349:6245255–60
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Katz DM. 2013. Quantitative legal prediction, or how I learned to stop worrying and start preparing for the data driven future of the legal services industry. Emory Law J 62:909–66
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Keuning J, Rainhart A. 2018. The law firm operations team: collaborative agent of change in a changing profession. Mitchell Hamline Rev 44:141–104
    [Google Scholar]
  53. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kira 2022. How Kira works https://kirasystems.com/how-kira-works
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kluttz DN, Mulligan DK. 2019. Automated decision support technologies and the legal profession. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 34:3853–90
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Kobayashi BH, Ribstein LE. 2011. Law's information revolution. Ariz. Rev. 53:41169–220
    [Google Scholar]
  57. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521:7553436–44
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Legatics 2021. Barriers to legal technology adoption Rep., Legatics, London https://events.legatics.com/hubfs/Barriers%20to%20Legal%20Technology%20Adoption.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lehr D, Ohm P. 2017. Playing with the data: what legal scholars should learn about machine learning. UC Davis Law Rev 51:653–717
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Linna DW Jr. 2015. What we know and need to know about legal startups. S.C. Law Rev. 67:2389–418
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Linna DW Jr., Curle D. 2020. Large law firm technology survey: law firm leader perceptions of the value of technology Surv., Legal Exec. Inst., Thomson Reuters Tor., Can:.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Litera 2022. The changing lawyer report 2022 Rep., Litera, Chicago https://info.litera.com/the-changing-lawyer-report-2022.html
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Malhotra N, Morris T, Smets M. 2010. New career models in UK professional service firms: From up-or-out to up-and-going-nowhere?. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 21:91396–413
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Mania K. 2023. Legal technology: assessment of the legal tech industry's potential. J. Knowl. Econ. 14:595–619
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Marcus RL. 2008. The impact of computers on the legal profession: Evolution or revolution?. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 102:41827–68
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Markovic M. 2019. Rise of the robot lawyers. Ariz. Law Rev. 61:2325–50
    [Google Scholar]
  67. McGinnis JO, Pearce RG. 2014. The great disruption: how machine intelligence will transform the role of lawyers in the delivery of legal services. Fordham Law Rev 82:63041–66
    [Google Scholar]
  68. McPeak A. 2019. Disruptive technology and the ethical lawyer. Univ. Toledo Law Rev. 50:3457–76
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Mungham G, Thomas PA. 1981. Studying lawyers: aspects of the theory, method and politics of social research. Br. J. Law Soc. 8:179–96
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Nissan E. 2017. Digital technologies and artificial intelligence's present and foreseeable impact on lawyering, judging, policing and law enforcement. AI Soc 32:3441–64
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Parker C, Ruschena D. 2011. The pressures of billable hours: lessons from a survey of billing practices inside law firms. Univ. St. Thomas Law J. 9:2619–64
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Pearl J, Mackenzie D. 2018. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect New York: Penguin Books Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Regan MC Jr., Heenan PT 2009. Supply chains and porous boundaries: the disaggregation of legal services. Fordham Law Rev 78:52137–92
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Remus D, Levy F. 2017. Can robots be lawyers? Computers, lawyers, and the practice of law. Georgetown J. Legal Ethics 30:3501–38
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Ribstein LE. 2010. The death of big law. Wis. Law Rev. 2010:3749–816
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Ribstein LE. 2012. Delawyering the corporation. Wis. Law Rev. 2012:2305–32
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Russell S, Norvig P. 2020. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach New York: Pearson
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sackmann S. 1989. The role of metaphors in organization transformation. Hum. Relat. 42:6463–85
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Sako M. 2020. Artificial intelligence and the future of professional work. Commun. ACM 63:425–27
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Sako M, Armour J, Parnham R. 2020. Lawtech adoption and training: findings from a survey of solicitors in England and Wales Rep., Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Sako M, Parnham R 2021. Technology and innovation in legal services: final report for the Solicitors Regulation Authority Rep., Univ. Oxford Oxford, UK:
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Sako M, Qian M, Attolini J. 2022. Future of professional work: evidence from legal jobs in Britain and the United States. J. Prof. Organ. 9:2143–69
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Sherer PD, Lee K. 2002. Institutional change in large law firms: a resource dependency and institutional perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 45:1102–19
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Siggelkow N. 2002. Misperceiving interactions among complements and substitutes: organizational consequences. Manag. Sci. 48:7900–16
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Skjølsvik T, Breunig KJ. 2018. Virtual law firms: an exploration of the media coverage of an emerging archetype. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 26:164–88
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Smets M, Morris T, Greenwood R. 2012. From practice to field: a multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Acad. Manag. J. 55:4877–904
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Spring M, Faulconbridge J, Sarwar A. 2022. How information technology automates and augments processes: insights from artificial-intelligence-based systems in professional service operations. J. Oper. Manag. 68:6–7592–618
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Susskind R, Susskind D. 2022. The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. , Updated ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Susskind RE. 2008. The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Susskind RE. 2017. Tomorrow's Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Teece DJ. 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Bus. Models 43:2172–94
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Thornton M. 2021. Legal professionalism in a context of Uberisation. Int. J. Legal Prof. 28:3243–63
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Wall DS, Johnstone J. 1997. The industrialization of legal practice and the rise of the new electric lawyer: the impact of information technology upon legal practice in the UK. Int. J. Sociol. Law 25:295–116
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Weinstein S. 2022. Lawyers’ perceptions on the use of AI. Law and Artificial Intelligence: Regulating AI and Applying AI in Legal Practice B Custers, E Fosch-Villaronga 413–32. The Hague, Neth: T.M.C. Asser
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Whalen R. 2022. Defining legal technology and its implications. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 30:147–67
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Wolters Kluwer 2021. The 2021 Wolters Kluwer future ready lawyer Survey Rep., Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn Neth:.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074716
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074716
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error