Artificial intelligence has become a standard part of legal work in the United States, with 69% of legal professionals now using general-purpose AI tools on the job - more than double the 31% who reported doing so a year earlier, according to the 2026 Legal Industry Report from 8am, a business platform for lawyers. The survey, cited by the American Bar Association, included more than 1,300 legal professionals nationwide.
Adoption is especially strong among younger lawyers. Nearly half of 2022 graduates of ABA-accredited law schools said AI has become an "essential" part of their daily work, according to a July 2026 survey by the National Association for Law Placement and the NALP Foundation. That survey of 1,302 law school graduates found legal research was the most common use, cited by 57% of AI users, followed by compiling and synthesizing information at 55%. Forty percent reported using AI to draft legal documents.
Maryland attorneys interviewed by The Daily Record said they treat AI as an assistant rather than a substitute for legal judgment. Across firms of varying sizes, one message emerged consistently: AI can save time, but attorneys - not algorithms - remain responsible for the final work product.
How attorneys are using AI tools
Claude and ChatGPT were the platforms cited most frequently, with attorneys also mentioning Perplexity and AI capabilities built into Lexis and Bloomberg Tax. Baltimore employment lawyer Kathleen Cahill said she routinely compares answers from all three major platforms rather than relying on a single one.
"I often run my projects or queries through all three," Cahill said. "Then by scrutiny and selection, I end up with a compilation."
That process takes longer than accepting a single AI-generated answer, she said, but produces better results while forcing her to remain actively engaged. "I never use AI passively," she said. "It is only a tool. I do not view it as an enhancement of my brain power or my experience to come to a decade of practice."
Attorneys said AI is particularly valuable for tasks that benefit from speed and creativity rather than absolute precision. Cahill uses AI for legal research, document review, editing, summarization and litigation strategy. Before one recent trial, she used AI to create what she described as a "synthetic focus group" to help test arguments. Rockville litigator John Garza said he frequently uses AI to research statutes and case law. "I find it to be helpful to get basic information," Garza said.
Glen Frost, a founding partner with Maryland's Frost Law, said the tax, business, litigation and estate law firm is using Claude Enterprise along with AI tools incorporated into Lexis and Bloomberg Tax. Frost said AI has improved efficiency across administrative functions while helping attorneys monitor new legislation, agency guidance and court decisions. "It helps us drill down with overviews of complex issues and current events," Frost said.
Frost Law has established an internal Legal Innovation Committee that regularly evaluates emerging AI technologies and identifies opportunities to improve firm operations. The firm also provides ongoing AI training for both attorneys and administrative staff. For legal professionals seeking structured training, an AI Learning Path for Paralegals covers document review and research applications discussed in this article.
Trust, but verify
Every attorney interviewed emphasized that AI-generated work is subject to careful human review. Because that verification duplicates much of the work, costs can outweigh the time savings. Garza said that as a semiretired attorney, the costs associated with using AI are a problem.
Cahill said lawyers have an ethical obligation to understand AI rather than simply use it. "It is an unprecedented opportunity, but it also creates a tremendous responsibility," she said. Attorneys should study AI continuously to ensure they use it "ethically, strategically and thoughtfully."
Garza warned that AI "misses things" and is still not as good as asking a lawyer who is an expert in the field. Complex medical records, for example, can easily be misinterpreted. Lawyers still must independently review the records to verify the AI's conclusions.
"As Ronald Reagan used to say, you still need to 'trust but verify,'" Frost said.
Why this matters for legal and IT professionals
For lawyers, paralegals and legal IT staff, the practical takeaway is that AI tools are now standard equipment - but they demand a verification workflow that preserves human judgment. Firms that adopt AI without building in review processes risk ethical violations and costly errors. Those that train staff properly can cut research time while maintaining quality. For IT professionals supporting legal teams, the priority is clear: build systems that make AI outputs auditable and keep attorneys in the review loop. Resources like AI for Legal can help practitioners stay current on tools and best practices.
Your membership also unlocks:
