In May and June of 2025, Ursula developed and carried out a quantitative online survey of Auckland and Christchurch lawyers, seeking to find out who is using Gen AI in their law businesses, what it is being used for, what lawyers think of GenAI, how its use is monitored and how risks are addressed, and what law practitioners think law graduates need to know about GenAI in order to practice law?
For the survey, GenAI tools were defined as tools powered by machine learning that can automate the creation of new content, such as text, translated text, images, audio, video or code, based on the data it has been trained on. Approximately 100 law firms or businesses responded to the survey: 42% were Auckland firms or businesses, 25% were practising in Christchurch, and 17% were located differently, for example, some were practising out of both cities.
Fifty-eight (58) percent of respondents were not using the tools, while 42% were. The main reason for not using the tools was because the practice or business said they did not know enough about it (50%). However, a quarter of respondents not using the tools did intend to use them in the future.
Most of those who were using GenAI said it is a useful starting point for research. Other positive comments included that it provides fast legal research and drafting support due to summarisation of cases, regulations, and complex concepts across trusted sources, with citations. It also streamlines web-based legal tasks owing to summarisation of long articles, extraction of key points from judgments or regulatory updates, comparison of legal frameworks across jurisdictions, and drafting of initial contract clauses. It can also assist with compliance monitoring and policy clarification to ensure decisions align with internal/external rules.
Law firms noted both positives and negatives, for example, that the use of GenAI has increased the speed (and generally also the length) of correspondence whether from competitors or colleagues, and this increases the pressure to consider and respond to correspondence, in what is already a relatively fast-paced environment. Another respondent noted there can also be a tendency of AI generated documents to 'throw the kitchen sink' at a matter, resulting in correspondence and other documents which cover all conceivable issues/points without identifying the issues that are truly important/central to a relevant matter. This increases the [number] of issues that need to be considered and addressed and therefore the time required to consider correspondence and respond appropriately.
Unsurprisingly, 93% of respondents thought that law degrees should include teaching on the nature and use of GenAI tools.
I identified the following clear conclusions from the study:
The business of law is in transition;
There is great uncertainty and some scepticism about the use of GenAI in legal practice;
However, there is also interest in using the tools, and acceptance that this is becoming an inevitable necessity in law and in life;
The greatest perceived risk associated with the use of GenAI is inaccuracy;
The greatest perceived benefits are speed and reduction in business costs;
Concerns remain about the potential for the tools to undermine skills such as critical reasoning and other analytical skills, and the art of persuasive negotiation.
In 2025, survey results have been presented at a UC research seminar, to the AMINZ Conference, and to the Southern Judges Regional Conference. Applying the survey results, the Law Faculty is now finalising a strategy to develop our teaching of GenAI. We are grateful thanks to those who responded to the survey with information about their own practice and also thoughtful and helpful comments.
