CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Artificial Intelligence in LawLegal Education and Practice InnovationsArtificial Intelligence Applications

How Technology Is (or Is Not) Transforming Law Firms

Open access
Rodgers, Ian, Armour, John, Sako, Mari·2023·Annual Review of Law and Social Science
DOI 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074716
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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: ( a) deployment not only in the back office but in the front office, affecting lawyers’ core tasks of advising clients; ( b) opportunities for lawyers to pursue alternative career paths with different skill sets across the profession; and ( c) emerging options for law firms to adopt business models creating value from nonhuman capital and nonlegal human capital.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074716

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LLMs are increasingly being used to augment legal practice, education, and research.

    “LLMs are increasingly being used to augment legal practice, education, and research”

    From Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Rodgers, Armour, and Sako 2023

    Section 2.2.3 reports AI-assisted technology being used for legal research in law firms, and the Introduction notes recent advances in large language models. But the paper does not establish that LLMs specifically are increasingly used across legal practice, education, and research; it does not address legal education, and its discussion of research concerns work within legal practice. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 66

  1. Armour J, Parnham R, Sako M. 2021. Unlocking the potential of AI for English law. Int. J. Legal Prof. 28(1):65- 83
  2. 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(1):27-46
  3. Armour J, Sako M. 2023. Lawtech: Levelling the playing field in legal services? In Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice, ed. D Engstrom, pp. 44-69. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  4. Ashley KD. 2018. Automatically extracting meaning from legal texts: opportunities and challenges. Ga. State Univ. Law Rev. 35(4):1117-52
  5. Baker JJ. 2018. 2018 A legal research odyssey: artificial intelligence as disruptor. Law Libr. J. 110(1):5-30
  6. Barley SR. 2020. Work and Technological Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  7. 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(5):1375-416
  8. Braithwaite WT. 1991. How is technology affecting the practice and profession of law? Tex. Tech Law Rev. 22(4):1113-58
  9. Brivot M, Lam H, Gendron Y. 2014. Digitalization and promotion: an empirical study in a large law firm. Br. J. Manag. 25(4):805-18
  10. Brooks C, Gherhes C, Vorley T. 2020. Artificial intelligence in the legal sector: pressures and challenges of transformation. Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 13(1):135-52
  11. Brynjolfsson E, Milgrom P. 2012. Complementarity in organizations. In The Handbook of Organizational Economics, ed. R Gibbons, J Roberts, pp. 11-55. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  12. Brynjolfsson E, Mitchell T. 2017. What can machine learning do? Workforce implications. Science 358(6370):1530-34
  13. Ceruzzi P. 2013. The historical context. In The SAGE Handbook of Digital Technology Research, ed. S Price, C Jewitt, B Brown, pp. 9-25. London: SAGE
  14. Coase RH. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16):386-405
  15. Cook TD, Campbell DT. 1979. Causal interference and the language of experimentation. In Quasi- Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings, pp. 1-36. Chicago: Rand McNally Coll.
  16. Cooper DJ, Hinings B, Greenwood R, Brown JL. 1996. Sedimentation and transformation in organizational change: the case of Canadian law firms. Organ. Stud. 17(4):623-47
  17. Curran K, McNamee E, McCaroll N, Chaurasia P, McBrearty S. 2019. The security considerations in cloud adop- tion for legal firms. Presented at the ICSET 2019: International Conference on Science, Engineering, and Technology, Tel Aviv, Israel, March 29-30
  18. Dzienkowski JS. 2013. The future of big law: alternative legal service providers to corporate clients. Fordham Law Rev. 82(6):2995-3040
  19. Faulconbridge J, Henriksen LF, Seabrooke L. 2021a. How professional actions connect and protect. J. Prof. Organ. 8(2):214-27
  20. 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(1):3-32
  21. Galanter M, Henderson W. 2008. The elastic tournament: a second transformation of the big law firm. Stanford Law Rev. 60(6):1867-930
  22. 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(4):747-811
  23. Galanter M, Palay T. 1994. Tournament of Lawyers: The Transformation of the Big Law Firm. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  24. Gilson RJ. 1990. The devolution of the legal profession: a demand side perspective. Mod. Law Rev. 49(4):869- 916
  25. Greenwood R, Empson L. 2003. The professional partnership: Relic or exemplary form of governance? Organ. Stud. 24(6):909-33
  26. 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(3):5
  27. Hadfield GK. 2007. Legal barriers to innovation: the growing economic cost of professional control over corporate legal markets. Stanford Law Rev. 60(6):1689-733
  28. Hunter D. 2020. The death of the legal profession and the future of law. Univ. N.S.W. Law J. 43(4):1199-225
  29. Janes SH, Keith P, Dotsika F. 2014. Implementing a social intranet in a professional services environment through Web 2.0 technologies. Learn. Organ. 21(1):26-47
  30. Jordan MI, Mitchell TM. 2015. Machine learning: trends, perspectives, and prospects. Science 349(6245):255- 60
  31. Keuning J, Rainhart A. 2018. The law firm operations team: collaborative agent of change in a changing profession. Mitchell Hamline Rev. 44(1):41-104
  32. Kluttz DN, Mulligan DK. 2019. Automated decision support technologies and the legal profession. Berkeley Technol. Law J. 34(3):853-90
  33. Kobayashi BH, Ribstein LE. 2011. Law's information revolution. Ariz. Rev. 53(4):1169-220
  34. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. 2015. Deep learning. Nature 521(7553):436-44
  35. Linna DW Jr. 2015. What we know and need to know about legal startups. S.C. Law Rev. 67(2):389-418
  36. 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(9):1396-413
  37. Marcus RL. 2008. The impact of computers on the legal profession: Evolution or revolution? Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 102(4):1827-68
  38. Markovic M. 2019. Rise of the robot lawyers. Ariz. Law Rev. 61(2):325-50
  39. 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(6):3041-66
  40. McPeak A. 2019. Disruptive technology and the ethical lawyer. Univ. Toledo Law Rev. 50(3):457-76
  41. Mungham G, Thomas PA. 1981. Studying lawyers: aspects of the theory, method and politics of social research. Br. J. Law Soc. 8(1):79-96
  42. Nissan E. 2017. Digital technologies and artificial intelligence's present and foreseeable impact on lawyering, judging, policing and law enforcement. AI Soc. 32(3):441-64
  43. 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(2):619-64
  44. Pearl J, Mackenzie D. 2018. The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect. New York: Penguin Books Ltd.
  45. Regan MC Jr., Heenan PT. 2009. Supply chains and porous boundaries: the disaggregation of legal services. Fordham Law Rev. 78(5):2137-92
  46. Remus D, Levy F. 2017. Can robots be lawyers? Computers, lawyers, and the practice of law. Georgetown J. Legal Ethics 30(3):501-38
  47. Ribstein LE. 2010. The death of big law. Wis. Law Rev. 2010(3):749-816
  48. Ribstein LE. 2012. Delawyering the corporation. Wis. Law Rev. 2012(2):305-32
  49. Russell S, Norvig P. 2020. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. New York: Pearson
  50. Sackmann S. 1989. The role of metaphors in organization transformation. Hum. Relat. 42(6):463-85
  51. Sako M. 2020. Artificial intelligence and the future of professional work. Commun. ACM 63(4):25-27
  52. 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
  53. Sako M, Parnham R. 2021. Technology and innovation in legal services: final report for the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Rep., Univ. Oxford, Oxford, UK
  54. Sherer PD, Lee K. 2002. Institutional change in large law firms: a resource dependency and institutional perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 45(1):102-19
  55. Siggelkow N. 2002. Misperceiving interactions among complements and substitutes: organizational conse- quences. Manag. Sci. 48(7):900-16
  56. Skjølsvik T, Breunig KJ. 2018. Virtual law firms: an exploration of the media coverage of an emerging archetype. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 26(1):64-88
  57. Smets M, Morris T, Greenwood R. 2012. From practice to field: a multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Acad. Manag. J. 55(4):877-904
  58. 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(6-7):592-618
  59. 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.
  60. Susskind RE. 2008. The End of Lawyers? Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  61. Susskind RE. 2017. Tomorrow's Lawyers: An Introduction to Your Future. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. 2nd ed.
  62. Teece DJ. 2010. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Bus. Models 43(2):172-94
  63. Thornton M. 2021. Legal professionalism in a context of Uberisation. Int. J. Legal Prof. 28(3):243-63
  64. 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(2):95-116
  65. Weinstein S. 2022. Lawyers' perceptions on the use of AI. In Law and Artificial Intelligence: Regulating AI and Applying AI in Legal Practice, ed. B Custers, E Fosch-Villaronga, pp. 413-32. The Hague, Neth.: T.M.C. Asser Whalen R. 2022. Defining legal technology and its implications. Int. J. Law Inf. Technol. 30(1):47-67
  66. Wolters Kluwer. 2021. The 2021 Wolters Kluwer future ready lawyer. Survey Rep., Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn, Neth. Refeudalization and Law: From the Rule of Law to Ties of Allegiance van Krieken p p p p p p p p -19 , -19

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rodgers, I., Armour, J., & Sako, M.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Law and Social Science
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2023-10-13
Volume
19
Issue
1
Pages
299-317
ISSN
  • 1550-3585 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-3631
DOI
10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074716
OpenAlex
W4376867729
Cited by
23
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2
FWCI
4.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Annual Review of Law and Social Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Education and Practice Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
law firms, artificial intelligence, machine learning, legal technology, legal profession

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review