From Billable Hours to Brainpower: Why AI Elevates Big Law (Not Erodes It)
From Billable Hours to Brainpower: Why AI Elevates Big Law (Not Erodes It)
The LexText Team
Updated:
Jun 3, 2025
Table of Contents
“LexText is freaking amazing… it’s 1,000% helpful. This could be an incredible teaching tool for associates,” raved one AmLaw 100 litigation partner after seeing the platform. Such enthusiasm is increasingly common as legal AI tools prove their worth. Yet in many Big Law halls, hesitation lingers. Partners worry that if AI streamlines tasks, billable hours (and revenue) will evaporate. Mentors fear young associates might lean on AI as a crutch, bypassing the grind that forged prior generations. These concerns are understandable – but they miss a larger opportunity. In reality, tools like LexText reallocate time away from drudgery and toward high-value work. The result? Happier clients, deeper learning for lawyers, and more – not less – value for law firms.
Let’s dive into the two big fears (billable hours and training) and see why modern litigation teams are embracing AI to elevate both their practice and their people.
“LexText is freaking amazing… it’s 1,000% helpful. This could be an incredible teaching tool for associates,” raved one AmLaw 100 litigation partner after seeing the platform. Such enthusiasm is increasingly common as legal AI tools prove their worth. Yet in many Big Law halls, hesitation lingers. Partners worry that if AI streamlines tasks, billable hours (and revenue) will evaporate. Mentors fear young associates might lean on AI as a crutch, bypassing the grind that forged prior generations. These concerns are understandable – but they miss a larger opportunity. In reality, tools like LexText reallocate time away from drudgery and toward high-value work. The result? Happier clients, deeper learning for lawyers, and more – not less – value for law firms.
Let’s dive into the two big fears (billable hours and training) and see why modern litigation teams are embracing AI to elevate both their practice and their people.
“LexText is freaking amazing… it’s 1,000% helpful. This could be an incredible teaching tool for associates,” raved one AmLaw 100 litigation partner after seeing the platform. Such enthusiasm is increasingly common as legal AI tools prove their worth. Yet in many Big Law halls, hesitation lingers. Partners worry that if AI streamlines tasks, billable hours (and revenue) will evaporate. Mentors fear young associates might lean on AI as a crutch, bypassing the grind that forged prior generations. These concerns are understandable – but they miss a larger opportunity. In reality, tools like LexText reallocate time away from drudgery and toward high-value work. The result? Happier clients, deeper learning for lawyers, and more – not less – value for law firms.
Let’s dive into the two big fears (billable hours and training) and see why modern litigation teams are embracing AI to elevate both their practice and their people.
The Billable Hour vs. AI Efficiency: A False Dilemma
For decades, the billable hour model rewarded spending more time on a task. It’s no surprise some firms quietly worry that efficiency-driven AI is a threat to their revenue model according to the National Law Review. As one legal tech CEO told the publication, large firms are “secretly hesitant due to the billable hour.” The math seems scary: If an AI tool drafts a document in 2 hours instead of 10, that’s 8 fewer hours to bill. But this fear is shortsighted. In practice, AI is pressuring the billable hour to evolve, not disappear. Forward-thinking firms are adapting by shifting to flat fees for AI-assisted tasks or simply handling more work in less time – benefiting both firm and client.
Clients are certainly paying attention. According to Bloomberg Law, every major law firm now has an internal AI committee because clients are explicitly asking: “How are you using AI?” Corporate legal departments understand that legal work is notoriously expensive, and they want the cost savings and efficiency gains that AI can offer. In other words, refusing to streamline low-value tasks isn’t a viable strategy when clients demand value. Firms that cling to inefficiency risk losing business to those who deliver results faster and smarter.
The data backs this up. Clio’s 2024 Legal Trends Report found that AI could automate up to 75% of work legal professionals currently bill for. In fact, 57% of tasks lawyers bill hours on are things that could be automated. Think about that – well over half of a typical lawyer’s timesheet is spent on tasks like document formatting, basic research, or routine drafting that don’t require creative legal judgment. If those hours can be trimmed or eliminated by AI, why not let it? That time can be reinvested elsewhere. According to Thomson Reuters, using AI could save lawyers about 4 hours per week, while generating an extra $100,000 in billable capacity per lawyer each year. How? By freeing attorneys to tackle more complex matters, handle a higher volume of work, or focus on client advisory roles that justify premium rates. In short, AI efficiency doesn’t kill revenue – it can boost it by refocusing lawyers on high-value activities that clients gladly pay for.
Alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) and value-based billing are already on the rise, in part because of technology. Many firms now charge flat fees or project-based fees for certain tasks, especially those aided by automation. One tech CEO noted that firms using his AI tool for litigation drafting have moved to flat rates for those automated portions. The firm isn’t losing money – it’s pricing the value of the work, not the hours. Meanwhile, associates can redirect their freed-up hours to more billable projects or to developing strategy (which only enhances case outcome and client satisfaction). The bottom line: efficiency and profit are not at odds. They only clash under an outdated pure-hourly mindset. Modern firms realize that delivering quality faster is a competitive advantage – and savvy clients will reward firms that embrace it.
It’s also worth noting that not adopting AI carries its own risk to the bottom line. Burnout and turnover among associates are costly, and much of that burnout comes from relentless, monotonous workloads. A recent survey showed that attorneys felt burned out 42% of the time in 2024, with mid- and senior-level associates reporting burnout at a striking 51%. Overworked associates often cite lack of work-life balance and lack of meaningful work as reasons for leaving firms. By automating the grind (without sacrificing quality), firms can lighten the load and improve retention – saving significant costs on recruiting and training replacements. Reducing drudge work doesn’t just save hours; it can save people. And those people, freed from burning the midnight oil on tedious tasks, can generate far more value for the firm in the long run.
For decades, the billable hour model rewarded spending more time on a task. It’s no surprise some firms quietly worry that efficiency-driven AI is a threat to their revenue model according to the National Law Review. As one legal tech CEO told the publication, large firms are “secretly hesitant due to the billable hour.” The math seems scary: If an AI tool drafts a document in 2 hours instead of 10, that’s 8 fewer hours to bill. But this fear is shortsighted. In practice, AI is pressuring the billable hour to evolve, not disappear. Forward-thinking firms are adapting by shifting to flat fees for AI-assisted tasks or simply handling more work in less time – benefiting both firm and client.
Clients are certainly paying attention. According to Bloomberg Law, every major law firm now has an internal AI committee because clients are explicitly asking: “How are you using AI?” Corporate legal departments understand that legal work is notoriously expensive, and they want the cost savings and efficiency gains that AI can offer. In other words, refusing to streamline low-value tasks isn’t a viable strategy when clients demand value. Firms that cling to inefficiency risk losing business to those who deliver results faster and smarter.
The data backs this up. Clio’s 2024 Legal Trends Report found that AI could automate up to 75% of work legal professionals currently bill for. In fact, 57% of tasks lawyers bill hours on are things that could be automated. Think about that – well over half of a typical lawyer’s timesheet is spent on tasks like document formatting, basic research, or routine drafting that don’t require creative legal judgment. If those hours can be trimmed or eliminated by AI, why not let it? That time can be reinvested elsewhere. According to Thomson Reuters, using AI could save lawyers about 4 hours per week, while generating an extra $100,000 in billable capacity per lawyer each year. How? By freeing attorneys to tackle more complex matters, handle a higher volume of work, or focus on client advisory roles that justify premium rates. In short, AI efficiency doesn’t kill revenue – it can boost it by refocusing lawyers on high-value activities that clients gladly pay for.
Alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) and value-based billing are already on the rise, in part because of technology. Many firms now charge flat fees or project-based fees for certain tasks, especially those aided by automation. One tech CEO noted that firms using his AI tool for litigation drafting have moved to flat rates for those automated portions. The firm isn’t losing money – it’s pricing the value of the work, not the hours. Meanwhile, associates can redirect their freed-up hours to more billable projects or to developing strategy (which only enhances case outcome and client satisfaction). The bottom line: efficiency and profit are not at odds. They only clash under an outdated pure-hourly mindset. Modern firms realize that delivering quality faster is a competitive advantage – and savvy clients will reward firms that embrace it.
It’s also worth noting that not adopting AI carries its own risk to the bottom line. Burnout and turnover among associates are costly, and much of that burnout comes from relentless, monotonous workloads. A recent survey showed that attorneys felt burned out 42% of the time in 2024, with mid- and senior-level associates reporting burnout at a striking 51%. Overworked associates often cite lack of work-life balance and lack of meaningful work as reasons for leaving firms. By automating the grind (without sacrificing quality), firms can lighten the load and improve retention – saving significant costs on recruiting and training replacements. Reducing drudge work doesn’t just save hours; it can save people. And those people, freed from burning the midnight oil on tedious tasks, can generate far more value for the firm in the long run.
For decades, the billable hour model rewarded spending more time on a task. It’s no surprise some firms quietly worry that efficiency-driven AI is a threat to their revenue model according to the National Law Review. As one legal tech CEO told the publication, large firms are “secretly hesitant due to the billable hour.” The math seems scary: If an AI tool drafts a document in 2 hours instead of 10, that’s 8 fewer hours to bill. But this fear is shortsighted. In practice, AI is pressuring the billable hour to evolve, not disappear. Forward-thinking firms are adapting by shifting to flat fees for AI-assisted tasks or simply handling more work in less time – benefiting both firm and client.
Clients are certainly paying attention. According to Bloomberg Law, every major law firm now has an internal AI committee because clients are explicitly asking: “How are you using AI?” Corporate legal departments understand that legal work is notoriously expensive, and they want the cost savings and efficiency gains that AI can offer. In other words, refusing to streamline low-value tasks isn’t a viable strategy when clients demand value. Firms that cling to inefficiency risk losing business to those who deliver results faster and smarter.
The data backs this up. Clio’s 2024 Legal Trends Report found that AI could automate up to 75% of work legal professionals currently bill for. In fact, 57% of tasks lawyers bill hours on are things that could be automated. Think about that – well over half of a typical lawyer’s timesheet is spent on tasks like document formatting, basic research, or routine drafting that don’t require creative legal judgment. If those hours can be trimmed or eliminated by AI, why not let it? That time can be reinvested elsewhere. According to Thomson Reuters, using AI could save lawyers about 4 hours per week, while generating an extra $100,000 in billable capacity per lawyer each year. How? By freeing attorneys to tackle more complex matters, handle a higher volume of work, or focus on client advisory roles that justify premium rates. In short, AI efficiency doesn’t kill revenue – it can boost it by refocusing lawyers on high-value activities that clients gladly pay for.
Alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) and value-based billing are already on the rise, in part because of technology. Many firms now charge flat fees or project-based fees for certain tasks, especially those aided by automation. One tech CEO noted that firms using his AI tool for litigation drafting have moved to flat rates for those automated portions. The firm isn’t losing money – it’s pricing the value of the work, not the hours. Meanwhile, associates can redirect their freed-up hours to more billable projects or to developing strategy (which only enhances case outcome and client satisfaction). The bottom line: efficiency and profit are not at odds. They only clash under an outdated pure-hourly mindset. Modern firms realize that delivering quality faster is a competitive advantage – and savvy clients will reward firms that embrace it.
It’s also worth noting that not adopting AI carries its own risk to the bottom line. Burnout and turnover among associates are costly, and much of that burnout comes from relentless, monotonous workloads. A recent survey showed that attorneys felt burned out 42% of the time in 2024, with mid- and senior-level associates reporting burnout at a striking 51%. Overworked associates often cite lack of work-life balance and lack of meaningful work as reasons for leaving firms. By automating the grind (without sacrificing quality), firms can lighten the load and improve retention – saving significant costs on recruiting and training replacements. Reducing drudge work doesn’t just save hours; it can save people. And those people, freed from burning the midnight oil on tedious tasks, can generate far more value for the firm in the long run.
Augmenting, Not Replacing: AI as a Training Tool for Associates
The second hesitation we hear from firm leaders and knowledge managers is a worry about associate development. In Big Law tradition, there’s a belief that the trial-by-fire of drafting and cite-checking into the wee hours is how young lawyers learn the craft. Handing them an AI tool, some fear, is like giving students the answers to the test – they might pass, but they won’t understand the material. This concern is valid up to a point: any new technology in the workplace should be used thoughtfully, with learning in mind. However, the notion that AI will stunt an associate’s growth gets it backward. When used properly, AI can accelerate learning and free up time for deeper training.
First, consider what junior associates actually spend their time on. A great deal of it is “rote, mundane” work – the exact kind of tasks AI excels at. Parsing through hundreds of documents for basic facts, reformatting citations for the tenth time, drafting a first-cut answer or discovery response that mostly follows a template – these teach diligence and attention to detail, yes, but they often don’t teach strategic lawyering. There is a diminishing return to learning when an associate has manually checked the 500th citation in a brief. At some point, it's just labor. AI can handle much of this rote work, allowing associates to focus on analysis, judgment, and advocacy skills – areas where human lawyers add value and learn the most. As legal tech leaders widely agree, AI will replace repetitive tasks, not the critical thinking process. In fact, by automating low-level tasks, AI augments lawyers, pushing them to engage more with the nuanced aspects of cases that AI cannot handle – and those are the very aspects that develop true legal expertise.
Far from being a crutch, a tool like LexText can be a catalyst for growth. For example, an associate using LexText to generate a first draft of a brief is not off the hook – they must still carefully review that draft, verify the sources, and tailor the arguments. In doing so, they are effectively learning by editing. They see in minutes what a well-structured (if generic) brief might look like, which can inform their own writing style. They can compare the AI’s draft to the partner’s later edits and pinpoint gaps in reasoning or nuance – turning the AI output into a teachable moment. A litigation partner from an AmLaw100 firm observed that LexText could be an “incredible teaching tool” for exactly this reason: it gives associates a head start, then challenges them to improve upon it. Rather than struggling to figure out the mere format or find a starting point, young lawyers can spend their time refining arguments, researching deeper into case law to strengthen a point, and asking senior attorneys for guidance on strategy – the things that actually make them better lawyers.
To be clear, mentorship and oversight remain essential. No one is suggesting that a first-year associate should turn in an AI-written brief without review, or that partners should stop giving feedback. On the contrary, AI can enhance the mentorship process. Consider a scenario: an associate drafts a motion with LexText’s help, then sits down with a partner to go over it. The partner can focus on the substantive choices – “Why did you include this argument? Let’s think of a stronger analogy here” – instead of spending half the meeting correcting formatting issues or typos. The conversation shifts to strategy and judgment. The associate comes away with insights on how to craft a better argument, not just a redline of cosmetic fixes. In this way, the time saved by AI is reinvested into rich feedback and coaching, which are far more valuable than the hours an associate would have spent perfecting margins or re-inventing boilerplate text.
The second hesitation we hear from firm leaders and knowledge managers is a worry about associate development. In Big Law tradition, there’s a belief that the trial-by-fire of drafting and cite-checking into the wee hours is how young lawyers learn the craft. Handing them an AI tool, some fear, is like giving students the answers to the test – they might pass, but they won’t understand the material. This concern is valid up to a point: any new technology in the workplace should be used thoughtfully, with learning in mind. However, the notion that AI will stunt an associate’s growth gets it backward. When used properly, AI can accelerate learning and free up time for deeper training.
First, consider what junior associates actually spend their time on. A great deal of it is “rote, mundane” work – the exact kind of tasks AI excels at. Parsing through hundreds of documents for basic facts, reformatting citations for the tenth time, drafting a first-cut answer or discovery response that mostly follows a template – these teach diligence and attention to detail, yes, but they often don’t teach strategic lawyering. There is a diminishing return to learning when an associate has manually checked the 500th citation in a brief. At some point, it's just labor. AI can handle much of this rote work, allowing associates to focus on analysis, judgment, and advocacy skills – areas where human lawyers add value and learn the most. As legal tech leaders widely agree, AI will replace repetitive tasks, not the critical thinking process. In fact, by automating low-level tasks, AI augments lawyers, pushing them to engage more with the nuanced aspects of cases that AI cannot handle – and those are the very aspects that develop true legal expertise.
Far from being a crutch, a tool like LexText can be a catalyst for growth. For example, an associate using LexText to generate a first draft of a brief is not off the hook – they must still carefully review that draft, verify the sources, and tailor the arguments. In doing so, they are effectively learning by editing. They see in minutes what a well-structured (if generic) brief might look like, which can inform their own writing style. They can compare the AI’s draft to the partner’s later edits and pinpoint gaps in reasoning or nuance – turning the AI output into a teachable moment. A litigation partner from an AmLaw100 firm observed that LexText could be an “incredible teaching tool” for exactly this reason: it gives associates a head start, then challenges them to improve upon it. Rather than struggling to figure out the mere format or find a starting point, young lawyers can spend their time refining arguments, researching deeper into case law to strengthen a point, and asking senior attorneys for guidance on strategy – the things that actually make them better lawyers.
To be clear, mentorship and oversight remain essential. No one is suggesting that a first-year associate should turn in an AI-written brief without review, or that partners should stop giving feedback. On the contrary, AI can enhance the mentorship process. Consider a scenario: an associate drafts a motion with LexText’s help, then sits down with a partner to go over it. The partner can focus on the substantive choices – “Why did you include this argument? Let’s think of a stronger analogy here” – instead of spending half the meeting correcting formatting issues or typos. The conversation shifts to strategy and judgment. The associate comes away with insights on how to craft a better argument, not just a redline of cosmetic fixes. In this way, the time saved by AI is reinvested into rich feedback and coaching, which are far more valuable than the hours an associate would have spent perfecting margins or re-inventing boilerplate text.
The second hesitation we hear from firm leaders and knowledge managers is a worry about associate development. In Big Law tradition, there’s a belief that the trial-by-fire of drafting and cite-checking into the wee hours is how young lawyers learn the craft. Handing them an AI tool, some fear, is like giving students the answers to the test – they might pass, but they won’t understand the material. This concern is valid up to a point: any new technology in the workplace should be used thoughtfully, with learning in mind. However, the notion that AI will stunt an associate’s growth gets it backward. When used properly, AI can accelerate learning and free up time for deeper training.
First, consider what junior associates actually spend their time on. A great deal of it is “rote, mundane” work – the exact kind of tasks AI excels at. Parsing through hundreds of documents for basic facts, reformatting citations for the tenth time, drafting a first-cut answer or discovery response that mostly follows a template – these teach diligence and attention to detail, yes, but they often don’t teach strategic lawyering. There is a diminishing return to learning when an associate has manually checked the 500th citation in a brief. At some point, it's just labor. AI can handle much of this rote work, allowing associates to focus on analysis, judgment, and advocacy skills – areas where human lawyers add value and learn the most. As legal tech leaders widely agree, AI will replace repetitive tasks, not the critical thinking process. In fact, by automating low-level tasks, AI augments lawyers, pushing them to engage more with the nuanced aspects of cases that AI cannot handle – and those are the very aspects that develop true legal expertise.
Far from being a crutch, a tool like LexText can be a catalyst for growth. For example, an associate using LexText to generate a first draft of a brief is not off the hook – they must still carefully review that draft, verify the sources, and tailor the arguments. In doing so, they are effectively learning by editing. They see in minutes what a well-structured (if generic) brief might look like, which can inform their own writing style. They can compare the AI’s draft to the partner’s later edits and pinpoint gaps in reasoning or nuance – turning the AI output into a teachable moment. A litigation partner from an AmLaw100 firm observed that LexText could be an “incredible teaching tool” for exactly this reason: it gives associates a head start, then challenges them to improve upon it. Rather than struggling to figure out the mere format or find a starting point, young lawyers can spend their time refining arguments, researching deeper into case law to strengthen a point, and asking senior attorneys for guidance on strategy – the things that actually make them better lawyers.
To be clear, mentorship and oversight remain essential. No one is suggesting that a first-year associate should turn in an AI-written brief without review, or that partners should stop giving feedback. On the contrary, AI can enhance the mentorship process. Consider a scenario: an associate drafts a motion with LexText’s help, then sits down with a partner to go over it. The partner can focus on the substantive choices – “Why did you include this argument? Let’s think of a stronger analogy here” – instead of spending half the meeting correcting formatting issues or typos. The conversation shifts to strategy and judgment. The associate comes away with insights on how to craft a better argument, not just a redline of cosmetic fixes. In this way, the time saved by AI is reinvested into rich feedback and coaching, which are far more valuable than the hours an associate would have spent perfecting margins or re-inventing boilerplate text.
Data-Backed Results and a New Paradigm for Big Law
It’s worth remembering that we’ve been here before. From the advent of legal research databases to the use of document review software, each new technology in law prompted fears of junior lawyers missing out on “the grind.” Yet associates still learned to practice – they just did it with different tools and in less time. Generative AI is a bigger leap, to be sure, and it comes with new challenges (we’ve written before about the risk of AI “hallucinations,” or the generation of false information). In 2025 alone, multiple attorneys made headlines after AI-generated hallucinations found their way into court filings, leading to sanctions. That is a real concern, and any firm adopting AI must do so with proper safeguards and training in place. (We addressed this in detail in a previous post – including how LexText’s design tackles accuracy.) With those guardrails, the fear of mistakes can be managed, and attorneys can trust the AI as a reliable assistant rather than a loose cannon.
When implemented thoughtfully, the impact of AI on a litigation practice is profound. It liberates hundreds of hours that were once spent on low-value tasks, and redirects that time to strategic thinking, case analysis, and skill development. Instead of young lawyers toiling as glorified proofreaders, they can engage in brainstorming sessions, attend client strategy meetings, or simply handle a greater number of substantive assignments because their capacity is higher. Partners, in turn, can delegate more meaningful work to associates because AI has leveled up their ability to deliver quickly and accurately on core tasks. In short, AI doesn’t replace the associate’s learning curve – it accelerates it. It replaces only the rote parts of legal work, not the art of lawyering. As one founder of a legal tech company put it, “AI will augment lawyers rather than fully replace them... the ‘human-in-the-loop’ lawyer will become more critical than ever to handle nuance and complexity that AI simply can’t.” Those firms that embrace AI as a complement, not a competitor, will thrive in the evolving legal landscape.
Big Law is beginning to recognize this shift. Surveys show a sharp rise in AI adoption in law firms over the past year, and a growing majority of lawyers view AI as a positive force for the profession. The conversation is no longer about if AI should be used, but how to use it responsibly to boost efficiency and maintain excellence. Tools like LexText are gaining champions among litigation teams precisely because they strike that balance – speeding up the drudgery while preserving the quality and rigor of the work product.
It’s worth remembering that we’ve been here before. From the advent of legal research databases to the use of document review software, each new technology in law prompted fears of junior lawyers missing out on “the grind.” Yet associates still learned to practice – they just did it with different tools and in less time. Generative AI is a bigger leap, to be sure, and it comes with new challenges (we’ve written before about the risk of AI “hallucinations,” or the generation of false information). In 2025 alone, multiple attorneys made headlines after AI-generated hallucinations found their way into court filings, leading to sanctions. That is a real concern, and any firm adopting AI must do so with proper safeguards and training in place. (We addressed this in detail in a previous post – including how LexText’s design tackles accuracy.) With those guardrails, the fear of mistakes can be managed, and attorneys can trust the AI as a reliable assistant rather than a loose cannon.
When implemented thoughtfully, the impact of AI on a litigation practice is profound. It liberates hundreds of hours that were once spent on low-value tasks, and redirects that time to strategic thinking, case analysis, and skill development. Instead of young lawyers toiling as glorified proofreaders, they can engage in brainstorming sessions, attend client strategy meetings, or simply handle a greater number of substantive assignments because their capacity is higher. Partners, in turn, can delegate more meaningful work to associates because AI has leveled up their ability to deliver quickly and accurately on core tasks. In short, AI doesn’t replace the associate’s learning curve – it accelerates it. It replaces only the rote parts of legal work, not the art of lawyering. As one founder of a legal tech company put it, “AI will augment lawyers rather than fully replace them... the ‘human-in-the-loop’ lawyer will become more critical than ever to handle nuance and complexity that AI simply can’t.” Those firms that embrace AI as a complement, not a competitor, will thrive in the evolving legal landscape.
Big Law is beginning to recognize this shift. Surveys show a sharp rise in AI adoption in law firms over the past year, and a growing majority of lawyers view AI as a positive force for the profession. The conversation is no longer about if AI should be used, but how to use it responsibly to boost efficiency and maintain excellence. Tools like LexText are gaining champions among litigation teams precisely because they strike that balance – speeding up the drudgery while preserving the quality and rigor of the work product.
It’s worth remembering that we’ve been here before. From the advent of legal research databases to the use of document review software, each new technology in law prompted fears of junior lawyers missing out on “the grind.” Yet associates still learned to practice – they just did it with different tools and in less time. Generative AI is a bigger leap, to be sure, and it comes with new challenges (we’ve written before about the risk of AI “hallucinations,” or the generation of false information). In 2025 alone, multiple attorneys made headlines after AI-generated hallucinations found their way into court filings, leading to sanctions. That is a real concern, and any firm adopting AI must do so with proper safeguards and training in place. (We addressed this in detail in a previous post – including how LexText’s design tackles accuracy.) With those guardrails, the fear of mistakes can be managed, and attorneys can trust the AI as a reliable assistant rather than a loose cannon.
When implemented thoughtfully, the impact of AI on a litigation practice is profound. It liberates hundreds of hours that were once spent on low-value tasks, and redirects that time to strategic thinking, case analysis, and skill development. Instead of young lawyers toiling as glorified proofreaders, they can engage in brainstorming sessions, attend client strategy meetings, or simply handle a greater number of substantive assignments because their capacity is higher. Partners, in turn, can delegate more meaningful work to associates because AI has leveled up their ability to deliver quickly and accurately on core tasks. In short, AI doesn’t replace the associate’s learning curve – it accelerates it. It replaces only the rote parts of legal work, not the art of lawyering. As one founder of a legal tech company put it, “AI will augment lawyers rather than fully replace them... the ‘human-in-the-loop’ lawyer will become more critical than ever to handle nuance and complexity that AI simply can’t.” Those firms that embrace AI as a complement, not a competitor, will thrive in the evolving legal landscape.
Big Law is beginning to recognize this shift. Surveys show a sharp rise in AI adoption in law firms over the past year, and a growing majority of lawyers view AI as a positive force for the profession. The conversation is no longer about if AI should be used, but how to use it responsibly to boost efficiency and maintain excellence. Tools like LexText are gaining champions among litigation teams precisely because they strike that balance – speeding up the drudgery while preserving the quality and rigor of the work product.
Conclusion: Reallocating Time to What Matters Most
In the final analysis, the hesitations about AI in litigation come down to a fear of losing something: losing billable hours, losing training opportunities, losing control over accuracy. But as we’ve seen, what AI really takes away are the low-value parts of the job – and what it gives back is time. Time for lawyers to apply their judgment to thornier legal problems. Time for associates to actively learn by focusing on strategy and high-level analysis. Time for partners to mentor rather than micromanage. And even time saved for clients, who get results faster and more cost-effectively.
The legal industry’s business model and training model are not being destroyed by AI – they are being reinvented. Firms that reallocate hours from grunt work to brain work will cultivate more skilled, engaged attorneys and more satisfied clients. Those that don’t will struggle under the weight of inefficiency and burnout. As a founder-led team of former litigators, we built LexText with this vision in mind: to elevate the practice of litigation by letting humans do what only humans can, and having AI handle the rest. The results so far speak for themselves in saved hours, improved work product, and yes, delighted attorneys (“freaking amazing” was not a phrase we heard often about formatting assignments!).
The future of Big Law will not be measured only in hours billed, but in the value and insight delivered to clients. Embracing AI is about empowering your lawyers to maximize that value. Legal AI tools like LexText are augmenting, not replacing, the way we train and deploy talent – and the firms that leverage these tools are already reaping the benefits in efficiency, quality, and growth.
Ready to see it for yourself? It’s time to move past the hesitations. Join the litigation teams and KM leaders who are using LexText to transform their workflows and free up time for what truly matters. Reach out or schedule a demo to learn more about how AI can energize your firm’s practice, from the routine to the remarkable. The firms that seize this moment will not only meet the demands of today’s clients – they’ll train a new generation of litigators who are sharper, faster, and more strategically engaged than ever before.
Sources:
Bloomberg Law (2025). Attorney Workload & Hours Survey – burnout and inefficiencies.
Clio Legal Trends Report (2024). AI & Automation findings – up to 75% of legal work automatable (57% of lawyer hours).
Danganan, J. (2025). Quoted in Bloomberg Law – clients demand AI efficiency from firms.
NatLawReview (2025). Legal AI Unfiltered: Tech Leaders on Billable Hour & Hallucinations – Big Law’s AI hesitancy and outlook.
Thomson Reuters (2025). How AI is transforming the legal profession (2025) – AI saves ~4 hours/week and $100k in annual billables per lawyer.
LexText Blog (2025). When AI Goes Rogue – addressing hallucinations with rigorous accuracy checks.
In the final analysis, the hesitations about AI in litigation come down to a fear of losing something: losing billable hours, losing training opportunities, losing control over accuracy. But as we’ve seen, what AI really takes away are the low-value parts of the job – and what it gives back is time. Time for lawyers to apply their judgment to thornier legal problems. Time for associates to actively learn by focusing on strategy and high-level analysis. Time for partners to mentor rather than micromanage. And even time saved for clients, who get results faster and more cost-effectively.
The legal industry’s business model and training model are not being destroyed by AI – they are being reinvented. Firms that reallocate hours from grunt work to brain work will cultivate more skilled, engaged attorneys and more satisfied clients. Those that don’t will struggle under the weight of inefficiency and burnout. As a founder-led team of former litigators, we built LexText with this vision in mind: to elevate the practice of litigation by letting humans do what only humans can, and having AI handle the rest. The results so far speak for themselves in saved hours, improved work product, and yes, delighted attorneys (“freaking amazing” was not a phrase we heard often about formatting assignments!).
The future of Big Law will not be measured only in hours billed, but in the value and insight delivered to clients. Embracing AI is about empowering your lawyers to maximize that value. Legal AI tools like LexText are augmenting, not replacing, the way we train and deploy talent – and the firms that leverage these tools are already reaping the benefits in efficiency, quality, and growth.
Ready to see it for yourself? It’s time to move past the hesitations. Join the litigation teams and KM leaders who are using LexText to transform their workflows and free up time for what truly matters. Reach out or schedule a demo to learn more about how AI can energize your firm’s practice, from the routine to the remarkable. The firms that seize this moment will not only meet the demands of today’s clients – they’ll train a new generation of litigators who are sharper, faster, and more strategically engaged than ever before.
Sources:
Bloomberg Law (2025). Attorney Workload & Hours Survey – burnout and inefficiencies.
Clio Legal Trends Report (2024). AI & Automation findings – up to 75% of legal work automatable (57% of lawyer hours).
Danganan, J. (2025). Quoted in Bloomberg Law – clients demand AI efficiency from firms.
NatLawReview (2025). Legal AI Unfiltered: Tech Leaders on Billable Hour & Hallucinations – Big Law’s AI hesitancy and outlook.
Thomson Reuters (2025). How AI is transforming the legal profession (2025) – AI saves ~4 hours/week and $100k in annual billables per lawyer.
LexText Blog (2025). When AI Goes Rogue – addressing hallucinations with rigorous accuracy checks.
In the final analysis, the hesitations about AI in litigation come down to a fear of losing something: losing billable hours, losing training opportunities, losing control over accuracy. But as we’ve seen, what AI really takes away are the low-value parts of the job – and what it gives back is time. Time for lawyers to apply their judgment to thornier legal problems. Time for associates to actively learn by focusing on strategy and high-level analysis. Time for partners to mentor rather than micromanage. And even time saved for clients, who get results faster and more cost-effectively.
The legal industry’s business model and training model are not being destroyed by AI – they are being reinvented. Firms that reallocate hours from grunt work to brain work will cultivate more skilled, engaged attorneys and more satisfied clients. Those that don’t will struggle under the weight of inefficiency and burnout. As a founder-led team of former litigators, we built LexText with this vision in mind: to elevate the practice of litigation by letting humans do what only humans can, and having AI handle the rest. The results so far speak for themselves in saved hours, improved work product, and yes, delighted attorneys (“freaking amazing” was not a phrase we heard often about formatting assignments!).
The future of Big Law will not be measured only in hours billed, but in the value and insight delivered to clients. Embracing AI is about empowering your lawyers to maximize that value. Legal AI tools like LexText are augmenting, not replacing, the way we train and deploy talent – and the firms that leverage these tools are already reaping the benefits in efficiency, quality, and growth.
Ready to see it for yourself? It’s time to move past the hesitations. Join the litigation teams and KM leaders who are using LexText to transform their workflows and free up time for what truly matters. Reach out or schedule a demo to learn more about how AI can energize your firm’s practice, from the routine to the remarkable. The firms that seize this moment will not only meet the demands of today’s clients – they’ll train a new generation of litigators who are sharper, faster, and more strategically engaged than ever before.
Sources:
Bloomberg Law (2025). Attorney Workload & Hours Survey – burnout and inefficiencies.
Clio Legal Trends Report (2024). AI & Automation findings – up to 75% of legal work automatable (57% of lawyer hours).
Danganan, J. (2025). Quoted in Bloomberg Law – clients demand AI efficiency from firms.
NatLawReview (2025). Legal AI Unfiltered: Tech Leaders on Billable Hour & Hallucinations – Big Law’s AI hesitancy and outlook.
Thomson Reuters (2025). How AI is transforming the legal profession (2025) – AI saves ~4 hours/week and $100k in annual billables per lawyer.
LexText Blog (2025). When AI Goes Rogue – addressing hallucinations with rigorous accuracy checks.
Go back
Blogs