The report suggests in-house teams face more barriers to integrating new tools
Law firms are adopting generative artificial intelligence tools at a higher rate than in-house legal departments, but both report similar levels of concerns about data security and ethical implications, according to a report on legal tech usage released Wednesday.
Legal tech company Appara surveyed 443 legal professionals in Canada across law firms and in-house legal departments over the summer, including lawyers, paralegals, legal assistants, law clerks, conveyancers, and notaries.
Twenty-five percent of respondents who worked at law firms said they’ve already invested in generative AI tools, with 24 percent reporting they plan to invest within the following year. In contrast, only 15 percent of respondents who work in-house have invested in these tools, with 26 percent planning investments in the future.
Both sectors reported similar levels of concerns about generative AI, but law firm respondents were slightly more hesitant (26 percent) than those who worked at in-house departments (25 percent).
When it comes to legal tech in general, the divide between law firms and in-house departments is wider. While 66 percent of law firm professionals report high legal tech adoption levels at their workplaces, only 29 percent of in-house professionals say the same.
This disparity could result from several particularly prohibitive factors for in-house departments. According to the survey, 61 percent of in-house departments said they faced budget limitations as a primary obstacle, compared to 39 percent of law firms.
Respondents in in-house settings also reported resistance to change as a barrier (41 percent) at a higher rate than law firm respondents (36 percent). Both in-house departments (36 percent) and law firms (39 percent) identified the poor integration of new technologies into existing systems as another struggle.
Yet, in-house professionals were more likely to report benefits from using legal tech. Eighty-six percent of in-house departments said legal tech tools increased their efficiency, compared to 58 percent of law firm respondents.
The reported disparity in high legal tech adoption levels “suggests that law firms are generally more advanced in integrating legal technology compared to their in-house counterparts,” the survey said.
However, the findings on barriers to legal tech adoption “highlight that in-house legal teams may struggle more with resource limitations and organizational resistance, whereas law firms may have more support in implementing new technologies.”
Appara chief operating officer Kurt McFee said in a statement, “This survey gives us valuable insights into how legal professionals are adopting technology and where the gaps still exist.
“The most interesting finding was the strong connection between adoption and satisfaction,” he added. 
