{"id":136867,"date":"2025-11-13T16:24:46","date_gmt":"2025-11-14T00:24:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/11\/13\/the-disco-study-a-watershed-moment-or-just-more-of-the-same\/"},"modified":"2025-11-13T16:24:46","modified_gmt":"2025-11-14T00:24:46","slug":"the-disco-study-a-watershed-moment-or-just-more-of-the-same","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/11\/13\/the-disco-study-a-watershed-moment-or-just-more-of-the-same\/","title":{"rendered":"The Disco Study: A Watershed Moment Or Just More Of The Same?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A new Disco study<\/a> suggests that despite all the hoopla over AI, we have a ways to go before it becomes commonly used in litigation and, more particularly, eDiscovery. The paradox is striking: even though Gen AI benefits are well recognized, there remains stubborn reluctance to embrace it.<\/p>\n

The study is entitled Legal AI: Driving the Future of the Profession<\/em>. It was primarily conducted online in the late summer by Disco<\/a> and Ari Kaplan Advisors<\/a>. The underlying survey was completed by 112 individuals, about half in-house and half in law firms. Interviews were also conducted. The focus was primarily on the use of AI tools in eDiscovery. Disco is a leading eDiscovery provider.<\/p>\n

The Significance<\/strong><\/p>\n

eDiscovery has traditionally served as the proving ground for legal tech adoption, the proverbial canary in the coal mine.<\/p>\n

The fact is eDiscovery is driven by time pressures that are often imposed by courts or clients. These pressures force lawyers and legal professionals to think about how to get work done quickly irrespective of billable hours. When the court orders you to produce relevant documents in 30 days requiring you to locate and review millions of data sources, you don\u2019t have time to figure out how to squeeze out the maximum number of billable hours. You\u2019re more concerned about not being embarrassed or worse.<\/p>\n

It was these pressures that led to things like technology assisted review that sped up the eDiscovery process and begrudgingly became the norm.<\/p>\n

Watershed Moment?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Disco describes eDiscovery as being at a watershed moment with AI. Indeed, there are certainly some suggestions in the Disco data that a corner may about to be turned when it comes to the use of AI. That would make logical sense since the efficiencies and time savings that AI tools could bring are significant.<\/p>\n

But some of the data suggests that while AI may indeed revolutionize litigation, things are not yet changing all that much. In fact, Disco itself concludes in its report based on the survey, \u201cFew \u2014 if any \u2014 have unlocked its promise at scale.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some Data Points<\/strong><\/p>\n

For example, 42% of those in law firms reported no external pressure to use AI solutions. This is consistent with the findings of an ACC study<\/a>, and one done by Thompson Hines<\/a>, both of which I previously discussed. Moreover, 36% of in-house attorneys surveyed say they\u2019re not facing pressure to use AI tools from management.<\/p>\n

Some more key statistics: only 35% of those surveyed report having incorporated GenAI in routine legal processes to any extent. That\u2019s not terribly surprising, since 56% of in-house counsel say they don\u2019t yet see GenAI as a tool for controlling litigation costs.<\/p>\n

The Paradox<\/strong><\/p>\n

This reluctance persists even though 70% recognized a top benefit of AI was an increase in efficiency. (Thirty-four percent identified costs savings which amounts to the same thing). Fifty-eight percent mentioned better analysis and insights and 40% reported faster evidence gathering. Similar benefits like the ability to quickly surface key evidence, spotting patterns and themes from the data, and the ability to assess case merit earlier have been noted by leading commentators like Doug Austin<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a paradox: while GenAI can make things better, it\u2019s not enthusiastically embraced. Why?<\/p>\n

Why Indeed?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The reasons given for not using AI are a little troubling. Despite evolving tools that better ensure privacy and security, 70% of law firm and 68% in-house respondents said privacy and security are still the biggest obstacles. In addition, consistent with the other surveys mentioned above, both in-house and outside lawyers are concerned about demonstrating ROI.<\/p>\n

But the main reason is that legal professionals are, in my opinion, turning a blind eye to the benefits and stubbornly holding on to previous ways of doing things. Fifty-two percent of those in law firms, for example, said they are only using AI to differentiate their firm as an \u201cinnovator.\u201d One lawyer put it this way, \u201cCost is not yet a factor; we are less concerned with profit margin and more on gaining market share.\u201d Another said, \u201cReduced costs are not a reality yet.\u201d\u00a0 In other words, law firms are not using AI substantively or recognizing the benefits.<\/p>\n

Several labeled the benefits of GenAI as \u201cpie-in-the sky.\u201d Some cling to the belief that the failure rate with AI in document review is higher than with humans. Some said even though blown away by results, they would still require a substantial amount of human oversight. This even though 79% of those surveyed rated GenAI tools with a three or higher on a five-point scale when it came to accuracy and 53% said it was a four or five.<\/p>\n

Other Issues<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are a host of other issues cited in the report as rationalizations for avoiding change (my comments to the cited issues appear in parenthesis):<\/p>\n