Most Legal Professionals Say AI Has Not Yet Changed Hiring, According to a Relativity Study
|
News Summary
- Relativity today released AI in Legal: 2026 Research Data, a new study finding that the majority of respondents (57.9%) said AI has had no impact on hiring, with more reporting increasing hiring (24.2%) than decreasing it (9.2%).
- 80.5% of legal professionals currently use AI in their legal work, with an even larger share of chief legal officers doing so. More than 99.0% of respondents either use AI now or plan to within 12 months.
- Respondents favored accuracy over speed by 92.3% to 7.7% and higher trust over lower cost by 79.3% to 20.7%.
CHICAGO, Nov. 12, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — Relativity, a legal data intelligence company, today announced findings from AI in Legal: 2026 Research Data, with research and analysis by International Data Corporation (IDC), a new study examining how legal professionals are adopting and governing AI. The study combines primary research from IDC, a survey of state court judges conducted by Relativity and the National Association of Women Judges (NAWJ), and findings from the upcoming eighth annual edition of The General Counsel Report, produced by Relativity and FTI Consulting. Together, these perspectives offer a broad view of AI use across the legal landscape, along with the growing importance of trust, governance and accountability.
The study draws on research conducted from April to October 2026, incorporating feedback from 700 legal professionals across 20 nations, including an IDC study of 401 respondents. Participants included lawyers, paralegals, legal technologists and legal IT professionals. The countries represented are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China (Hong Kong), Colombia, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.
“In this 2026 follow-up to our 2024 study, the data show that AI use in the legal profession is now a fait accompli. The question is no longer ‘Are legal teams using AI?’ but ‘How and why are lawyers and their colleagues using it?'” said David Horrigan, Discovery Counsel and Legal Education Director at Relativity. “Some of the data, such as more than 91.0% of chief legal officers and more than 80.0% of all legal professionals using AI, was not surprising at all. What did surprise us was that, for most respondents, AI has had no effect on hiring at this point, and more reported adding staff than cutting it.”
AI has not yet upended hiring or billing in aggregate
The data suggest AI is not yet driving widespread staffing reductions. According to IDC, 57.9% of respondents said AI has had no impact on their hiring, and more reported increasing hiring (24.2%) than decreasing it (9.2%).
“Many have predicted that AI will end the billable hour on the theory that faster work will lead clients to demand task-based billing,” said Horrigan. “The research indicates that has not happened broadly, at least not yet.”
The billable hour remains the most common primary billing method among respondents (32.5%), ahead of task-based billing (22.3%), hybrid billing (20.3%) and contingency fees (18.0%).
The research also points to cost savings, with 82.8% of respondents saying AI has saved their organization money.
AI becomes the baseline, not the differentiator
The research indicates 80.5% of legal professionals and more than 91.0% of chief legal officers currently use AI in their legal work, and more than 99.0% of respondents either use it now or plan to within 12 months. The level of usage is also growing, with 93.0% of respondents saying they have increased their AI use, by an average of 65.0%, while just 0.9% have decreased it.
“When adoption ceilings sit above 90.0%, using AI stops being a differentiator and starts being a floor,” said Ryan O’Leary, Research Director for Privacy and Legal Technology at IDC. “The advantage moves to how well it is used.”
Outlook on and adoption of AI differ by role
According to data from The General Counsel Report, 86.8% of chief legal officers are very or somewhat optimistic about AI.
Judges, by contrast, are adopting AI at a slower pace. Data from the Relativity-NAWJ survey indicate 16.6% of respondents never use AI and another 33.3% use it only rarely. About one in five federal and state judges (20.4% and 20.0%, respectively) prohibit court staff from using AI, while 7.4% of federal judges and 14.2% of state judges permit and encourage it.
Their outlook is also more divided. In the Relativity-NAWJ survey, 47.1% of state court judges said they are very or somewhat optimistic, and 36.0% said they are very or somewhat concerned. Among federal judges surveyed by The Sedona Conference, 43.6% were optimistic, and 41.7% were concerned.
Accuracy beats speed, and trust beats cost
In the IDC research, trust consistently outweighed speed and cost. When forced to choose, respondents favored accuracy over speed by 92.3% to 7.7%, and higher trust over lower cost by 79.3% to 20.7%. Respondents also preferred keeping a human in the loop (64.1%) over complete automation (35.9%).
As AI agents enter legal workflows, the study indicates that oversight will determine whether trust keeps pace with adoption. For agentic AI, respondents said human approval (67.0%) and mandatory source citations (60.0%) are the most commonly required safeguards.
Security posture (59.9%), governance capabilities (59.4%) and clear AI principles (51.9%) are the top three qualities legal professionals look for in AI vendors.
“Buyers aren’t shopping for features first,” said O’Leary. “They’re checking whether you’re safe to let near their data.”
Inside organizations, governance work is still underway: about 91.0% have an AI governance framework in place or in progress, yet only 23.0% have fully adopted one, and 9.0% have no plans at all, according to IDC’s research.
Concerns about accuracy and data security remain the gatekeepers to deeper adoption. Hallucinations, which were not a leading concern in the 2024 study, are now respondents’ top worry (52.0%), followed by data loss (46.0%) and data bias (41.0%). Yet hallucinations are also the risk legal professionals feel best equipped to handle: 44.7% say they are almost or fully prepared for them, and only 15.5% say they are not prepared at all.
To learn more about the findings in AI in Legal: 2026 Research Data, with research and analysis by IDC, download the full study here.
About Relativity
Relativity is a leading legal data intelligence company that builds technology to help users organize data, discover the truth, and act on it. Its AI platform, Relativity aiR, transforms complex data into actionable insights at massive scale for litigation, investigations, regulatory inquiries, data breach responses, and other legal use cases. The world’s largest law firms and corporations, government agencies, and a robust network of channel partners rely on Relativity’s legal AI to securely surface and manage the most relevant and impactful information in their matters. The company also expands access to technology by providing its platform at no cost to academic institutions through its Relativity Academic program and to organizations supporting pro bono legal work through its Justice for Change initiative.
CONTACT: [email protected]
SOURCE Relativity
