More in-house legal teams use AI despite trust concerns: ACC survey
WASHINGTON, D.C., UNITED STATES — A survey of over 650 in-house legal professionals reveals that more than half are already using generative artificial intelligence (AI) in their legal practice.
According to the Canadian Lawyer Magazine, the rapid adoption is occurring despite significant concerns from non-users about the technology’s reliability and data privacy, highlighting a pivotal moment for the legal industry.
Widespread AI adoption and optimism
The survey, conducted by the Association of Corporate Counsel and the legal tech company Everlaw in June and July, found that 53% of respondents across 30 countries have already used GenAI tools in their day-to-day practice.
This base adoption is further enhanced by another 14% who are also experimenting with the technology and 17% who are in the process of planning its deployment, indicating that AI integration is now becoming a normal operating factor.
Through an email, Veta Richardson, ACC president and CEO, told Canadian Lawyer that adoption of AI tools “has accelerated across in-house legal teams.”
The technology is already delivering tangible benefits in specific legal functions, which gives hope for its future impact. Current users identified drafting legal documents—including advice, contracts, and policies—as the primary beneficiary, alongside legal research and team collaboration.
Looking forward, 64% of all respondents anticipate that generative AI will reduce their reliance on third-party providers for routine tasks. At the same time, 50% expect to spend less on external services, such as outside counsel, suggesting a potential restructuring of legal service delivery models and costs.
Data privacy and trust still major barriers
Adoption is speeding up, though there is still a clear lack of trust among a group of legal professionals, which remains a major obstacle to universal acceptance. Even among the small minority of non-users and unintended users of GenAI, 82% distrusted the quality and reliability of the tools.
Moreover, 55% of them also expressed fears about the use of their data, which they think could be abused, and thus, the risk associated with using these tools is even greater than the perceived benefits to most people.
To these reluctant practitioners, organizational and practical challenges are as important as technological issues. Forty-five percent said GenAI is not a priority or initiative at their workplace, and 36% said they do not have the budget to purchase the required tools.
Another, more significant yet less substantial group, at 9%, stated that corporate-wide policies are clearly prohibitive of the use of GenAI at work, indicating that corporate governance and resource allocation can play a decisive role in the pace of such a shift in the legal sector.
“This reflects a growing willingness among in-house teams to challenge traditional models and explore new approaches,” Richardson concludes.
This signals an irreversible shift towards automated efficiency that will fundamentally recalibrate internal legal operations, external service dependencies, and the very economics of the legal profession.
