auslaw

VLSB evidence shows AI’s ‘benefits’ may not yet be ‘benefits’

Late last week (30 October 2026), the Victorian Legal Services Board (VLSB) and Commissionerโ€™s Legal Services Research Centre published their The Evolving Use of Generative AI: Findings from the 2026 Victorian Lawyer Census.

The voluntary census received responses from 2,221 Victorian qualified lawyers and found:

  • 55% were using AI in legal practice, up from 37% in 2025;
  • 78% of AI users had increased their use during the year;
  • 79% of AI users relied on general-purpose products such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini and Copilot; and
  • adoption differences between career stages had largely disappeared among lawyers aged under 60.

Some other significant AI-related takeaways from the Report:

  • Among AI users in fee-charging practice, 26% said AI had produced lower fees for clients. Fee reductions were more common among lawyers principally serving B2B clients.
  • 46% of client-facing lawyers reported clients arriving with inaccurate or misleading information obtained through AI
  • 41% had received AI-generated documents or correspondence requiring correction.
  • Only 10% reported clients arriving with a better understanding of their legal issues because of AI.

One of the biggest red flags to come out of the Report: 46% of lawyers said it increased the time and effort required to deliver services.

Clearly we have a way to go, and while adoption is up its use still needs improvement.

Interesting though, use of general-purpose AI platforms is much higher than I had thought. Which leads to the question: Where’s the governance?

Link to Report

rws_01

๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐š๐ซ๐ ๐ž๐ญ๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐Ÿ๐ข๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ-๐ฒ๐ž๐š๐ซ ๐ฅ๐š๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ ๐š๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ž๐ฅ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ž๐ [Australian] ๐ฅ๐š๐ฐ ๐Ÿ๐ข๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฌ

As we start out on 2025, the ๐‘จ๐’–๐’”๐’•๐’“๐’‚๐’๐’Š๐’‚๐’ ๐‘ญ๐’Š๐’๐’‚๐’๐’„๐’Š๐’‚๐’ ๐‘น๐’†๐’—๐’Š๐’†๐’˜ (AFR) has helpfully published a table today (14.01.2025) – ‘๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐š๐›๐ฅ๐ž ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ญ๐š๐ซ๐ ๐ž๐ญ๐ฌ ๐Ÿ๐จ๐ซ ๐Ÿ๐ข๐ซ๐ฌ๐ญ-๐ฒ๐ž๐š๐ซ ๐ฅ๐š๐ฐ๐ฒ๐ž๐ซ๐ฌ ๐š๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ž๐ฅ๐ž๐œ๐ญ๐ž๐ ๐ฅ๐š๐ฐ ๐Ÿ๐ข๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฌ’ – that makes for very interesting reading.

Other than the expected billable hour targets for first year lawyers and comments on alleged “under-billing” practices at major Australian law firms, what caught my attention in the article was this comment:

“๐˜–๐˜ฏ๐˜ญ๐˜บ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ฎ โ€“ ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜“๐˜ฐ๐˜ค๐˜ฌ๐˜ฆ โ€“ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ค๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ด ๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜จ๐˜ฆ๐˜ต๐˜ด ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ง๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ญ๐˜บ, ๐˜ธ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฉ ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฒ๐˜ถ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ข๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ถ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ฏ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ๐˜ด ๐˜ฃ๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ. ๐˜“๐˜ข๐˜ธ๐˜บ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ด ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ข๐˜ต ๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ณ๐˜ฎ ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ฃ๐˜ณ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜จ ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜ง๐˜ฐ๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ช๐˜ณ ๐˜ด๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜บ ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ ๐˜ค๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต ๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด.”

I might be wrong, but in the event that Hamilton Locke charges clients by the billable hour, then I highly suspect this also translates into a yearly hourly targetโ€ฆ

โ€ฆIn the event that HL charges clients fixed fees or some other type of fee arrangement, then I accept this calculation probably sets it apart.

rws_01