We’re
now
two
years
into
the
generative
AI
era
and
so
far
this
supposedly
revolutionary
technology
has
mostly
delivered
bad
middle
school
term
papers
and
embarrassing
lawyer
stories.
Which
isn’t
to
say
the
technology
can’t
perform
useful,
time-saving
tasks,
it’s
just
that
—
barring
a
fundamental
breakthrough
like
fusion
energy
or
quantum
computing
—
AI’s
potential
upper
bound
isn’t
“replacing
lawyers”
as
much
as
“processing
transcripts
faster.”
It’s
time
to
rejoice
in
AI’s
amazing
but
mundane
capabilities
rather
than
pine
for
free
intellectual
labor
that
won’t
hallucinate
like
it’s
on
the
brown
acid.
And
this
goes
double
for
the
non-lawyers
that
in-house
legal
teams
have
to
keep
in
line.
The
latest
General
Counsel
Report
2025
from
FTI
Consulting and Relativity confirms
that
two
years
into
this,
in-house
lawyers
remain
largely
unprepared
for
the
risks
posed
by
generative
AI.
Part
of
this
isn’t
their
fault.
AI
is
moving
rapidly
and
users
are
working
just
as
fast
creating
headaches.
The
volume
of
queries
people
make
of
consumer-facing
AI
toys
have
skyrocketed
with
one
firm
reporting
32,000
hits
in
a
week.
And
that’s
a
law
firm!
Multiply
that
usage
rate
out
across
a
multibillion
dollar
corporation.
No
matter
how
hard
lawyers
try
to
direct
users
to
products
with
real
security
and
guardrails,
a
new
product
will
arrive
with
the
security
integrity
of
a
wet
paper
bag
to
upset
that
guidance.
In
interviews,
85
percent
indicated
they
are
minimally
or
not
at
all
prepared,
a
slight
improvement
from
the
prior
year’s
total
of
93
percent.
Additionally,
generative
AI
was
the
only
topic
where
not
one
of
the
participants
assigned
a
four
or
five
out
of
five
for
their
AI
readiness
(on
a
one-to-five
scale
of
not
at
all
prepared
to
very
prepared).
At
that
rate,
in-house
lawyers
won’t
be
prepared
until
just
before
Trump’s
fifth
term.
Another
obstacle
to
preparedness
is
the
lack
of
consensus
over
exactly
presents
the
biggest
problem:
Loss
of
jobs
at
the
bottom.
Never
change
corporate
America!
“Security”
and
“Data
Privacy”
are
separate
but
overlapping
issues
when
it
comes
to
AI.
But
worse,
these
challenges
aren’t
limited
to
AI
usage.
A
staggering
65
percent
of
GCs
say
they’re
not
prepared
to
deal
with
securing
all
the
emerging
data
sources
under
their
roofs
like
collaboration
apps,
cloud
storage,
and
linked
content.
Some
respondents
also
reported
increases
in
data
breaches
(21%)
and
privacy
violations
or
notifications
(18%).
These
figures
varied
somewhat
from
the
2024
report,
when
38%
and
21%
noted
increases
in
breaches
and
privacy
violations,
respectively.
Data
privacy
and
DSARs
were
also
ranked
as
the
second
and
third
highest
issues
causing
disputes
and
investigations,
listed
as
a
primary
driver
by
33%
and
29%,
respectively.
While
employees
are
probably
exposing
data
or
avenues
into
the
company
systems
in
a
variety
of
ways,
feeding
confidential
client
data
to
an
AI
model
headquartered
somewhere
between
Shanghai
and
“Gee,
Wouldn’t
You
Like
To
Know”
adds
a
whole
new
level
of
risk.
Put
more
bluntly,
one
respondent
said,
“I
am
scared
$h!+less
that
if
we
are
audited,
we
will
be
found
non-compliant
because
of
how
employees
or
patients
transmit
data.”
Earlier:
New
GC
Report
Details
All
The
In-House
Concerns
That
Ceased
To
Matter
Around,
Say,
Inauguration
Day
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.