The short version
- AI usage among Victorian lawyers jumped from 37% to 55% in one year, with adoption rates leveling across age groups except for those over sixty.
- Only a quarter of practitioners reported lowering client fees due to AI efficiency, while nearly half said they now spend more time correcting inaccurate information provided by clients who used AI tools.
- The disparity in fee reductions is linked to corporate clients having greater legal sophistication and bargaining power compared to individual consumers seeking community legal services.
A significant shift in the legal landscape of Victoria has been documented in a recent census conducted by the Victorian Legal Services Board and Commissioner’s legal services research centre. The study, which surveyed 2,221 lawyers in the state, indicates that artificial intelligence has moved from a niche tool to a mainstream component of legal practice. Fifty-five percent of respondents reported using AI in their work during the current year, marking a substantial increase from the 37% adoption rate recorded just twelve months prior. This rapid uptake suggests that the technology is no longer viewed as experimental but is instead becoming integrated into daily operations across various sectors of the profession.
The demographic profile of AI users has also evolved. Previous data indicated that younger lawyers, particularly those under thirty, were the primary drivers of adoption. However, the 2026 findings show that this age-based disparity has largely vanished, with usage rates becoming more uniform across different generations. The only notable exception remains among practitioners aged sixty and older, who continue to report lower levels of engagement with these technologies. This broadening base of users implies that AI is permeating all levels of the legal workforce, rather than being confined to a specific cohort of early adopters.
Adoption rates vary significantly depending on the area of law practiced. Professionals working in trade practices reported the highest usage at 85%, followed closely by those in banking and finance, as well as information technology and telecommunications, both at 78%. In contrast, fields such as criminal law saw much lower adoption, with only 29% of practitioners utilizing AI tools. Family law and administrative law fell in the middle, with usage rates of 45% and 46% respectively. These differences likely reflect the nature of the work; areas involving heavy document review, regulatory compliance, or data analysis may offer more immediate opportunities for automation compared to practice areas that rely heavily on interpersonal interaction or nuanced judgment.
Despite the widespread integration of AI, the anticipated economic benefits have not materialized for most clients. Only 26% of lawyers indicated that their use of artificial intelligence had resulted in reduced fees. This figure is notably higher among those serving business clients, where 34% reported fee reductions, compared to just 23% for individual fee-paying clients. Dr. Georgie Rychner, the principal researcher and co-author of the report, attributed this gap to the differing capabilities of client bases. Corporate clients often possess high levels of legal capability and may use AI in their own operations, allowing them to better understand cost structures and advocate for lower prices. Individual consumers, particularly those accessing community legal services, lack this leverage and technical familiarity.
Furthermore, the efficiency gains promised by AI have been offset by new challenges related to accuracy and verification. While 79% of lawyers reported using consumer-grade chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Copilot, rather than specialized legal tools, many found that these general-purpose models produced errors requiring correction. In 2025, 89% of practitioners stated they took steps to verify the accuracy of AI output, a process that can negate time savings. The current data suggests that this verification burden remains significant, preventing the technology from delivering the streamlined workflows initially expected by the industry.
A growing concern is the impact of client-side AI usage on lawyer workloads. Nearly half of the surveyed attorneys reported an increase in time and effort required when clients arrive with information generated by artificial intelligence. Specifically, 46% noted that clients frequently present inaccurate or misleading information about their legal problems, while 41% said they had to correct AI-generated documents. This trend contrasts sharply with the minority of lawyers, only 19%, who reported a reduction in time and effort due to client use of AI. The influx of unverified data appears to be adding complexity rather than simplifying case preparation.
The broader legal community has been grappling with these issues since 2023, as courts and regulatory bodies across Australia respond to the rise of generative AI. Incidents of false citations and fabricated case law have led to sanctions, including a recent case in Victoria where a lawyer was stripped of his ability to practice as a principal after false citations were discovered. Similar investigations have been launched in Western Australia and New South Wales. In response, the federal court issued new rules regarding the use of generative AI in April, and Chief Justice Stephen Gageler described the current state of AI-generated content in legal cases as having reached an unsustainable phase.
As the industry navigates this transition, the focus is shifting from mere adoption to effective management of risks. The data indicates that while AI is here to stay, its benefits are not automatic. Lawyers must balance the potential for efficiency with the necessity of rigorous verification and client education. Future research will need to explore client perspectives more deeply to understand how they interact with these tools and what support they require. Until then, the legal profession in Victoria faces a complex reality where technology adoption is high, but the promise of lower costs and easier workflows remains largely unfulfilled for the majority of practitioners and their clients.
The findings underscore a critical juncture for the legal sector. The initial wave of enthusiasm for AI has given way to a more pragmatic assessment of its limitations. With nearly half of lawyers reporting increased workloads due to client-generated errors, the profession is being forced to adapt not just its internal processes but also its client engagement strategies. The disparity between corporate and individual clients highlights an equity concern, as those with fewer resources may find themselves at a disadvantage in navigating this new technological landscape. Addressing these challenges will require coordinated efforts from regulators, educational institutions, and legal practitioners to ensure that AI serves the interests of justice rather than complicating them.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗More than half of Victorian lawyers use AI – but only a quarter have cut client fees as a result
