I don\u2019t know Hyuk and can\u2019t vouch for his findings. But they sound consistent with what I have observed and seen. I\u2019ll spell out the why in a moment. But first let\u2019s look at what he says in a recent LinkedIn post<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n Hyuk says lawyers and legal professionals spend 60% of their time on administrative work like file organization, back-office stuff, and verification (which I assume means in part verifying cites provided by GenAI output). Much of this stuff is nonbillable; Hyuk\u2019s findings are generally consistent in this regard with what Clio\u2019s yearly Legal Trends Reports<\/a> have consistently found. Forty percent of lawyer time according to Hyuk is spent on the legal work lawyers really like doing: the research and intellectually challenging activities.<\/p>\n Yet, according to Hyuk, investors in legal tech vendors focus 70% of their dollars on those that provide the sexy stuff: research tools, contract AI, and e-discovery. Many of these tools are based on GenAI. He notes that only six well-known legal tech providers focus on the 60% while over 15 providers focus on the 40%. He asks the very legitimate question: \u201cWhy this massive gap between what lawyers do and what the industry builds?\u201d<\/p>\n The answer reveals something troubling about current investment priorities in legal tech<\/a>.<\/p>\n Mind The Gap<\/strong><\/p>\n The gap is particularly surprising since it is the 60% work that AI tools and automation can do really well and accurately. The 40% work, the legal research? The focus of vendors here is on using GenAI to do this kind of work, which frankly it\u2019s not all that great at. It makes mistakes. It hallucinates. It\u2019s inaccurate. And as Hyuk notes and about which Melissa Rogozinski<\/a> and I have also written<\/a>, it requires constant verification and supervision.<\/p>\n Certainly, one could argue that investors are following that effort and pouring money into vendors that are working hard to eliminate these problems. They are just rewarding vendors who are spending the time and energy on the GenAI tools to make them better and eliminate the hallucinations and inaccuracies.<\/p>\n But I tend to think it\u2019s not necessarily that logical. First, the stuff that the six companies Hyuk references as working on tools to better and more efficiently deal with the 60% \u2013Docusign, Filevine, NetDocuments, Clio, Smokeball, and 8am (which he refers to as MyCase, which was the company name pre-recent rebranding) \u2014 are doing, well, boring stuff. (My apologies to all.) It\u2019s not sexy stuff. It\u2019s back-office work: billing, collections, intake, payments, etc. Stuff that\u2019s not billable but eats up incredible amounts of many lawyers\u2019 and legal professionals\u2019 days.<\/p>\n And pardon the sports reference but since we are in football playoff season here in the US, it\u2019s the blocking and tackling work that has to be done for the quarterbacks and wide receivers of the world to shine. To enable the lawyers and legal professionals to do what they are good at and like doing. It\u2019s the kind of work in sports and in the real world that rarely gets the attention that other work does. But it\u2019s just as important if not more so.<\/p>\n GenAI for GenAI\u2019s Sake<\/strong><\/p>\n Another reason for the gap: much of the 60% work is done not by GenAI tools but by standard AI tools and automation. Granted, I know from writing about and observing legal tech, that the six companies Hyuk names are working on GenAI tools to build on what they do best. But it\u2019s to achieve their mission to provide a core product to do the important but often boring business part of running a law firm. Their view is if a GenAI tool can make what we offer better, we will offer it. If not, we won\u2019t.<\/p>\n The 15 companies mentioned focusing on the 40% of lawyers\u2019 work often narrow their focus to GenAI and GenAI only, trying to make it work where it doesn\u2019t fit. To offer GenAI tools for GenAI\u2019s sake as opposed to solving real problems and pain points.<\/p>\n But because GenAI is all the rage these days, investors flock to those providers who are selling new and shiny toys. The investors are betting that the customers of these vendors will also flock to the new and shiny toys even though there may still be challenges with them and their implementation. And in spite of the fact that other tools that aren\u2019t GenAI can still solve many law firm challenges.<\/p>\n What\u2019s a Lawyer to Do?<\/strong><\/p>\n The fact that Hyuk\u2019s gap exists given the challenges with GenAI tools should in and of itself give law firms some pause when looking at AI and GenAI tools. It\u2019s legitimate to ask whether investors are pouring money into GenAI firms because it\u2019s the thing to do or do these tools offer real solutions to lawyers\u2019 and legal professionals\u2019 problems?<\/p>\n The bottom line: law firms would do well to take GenAI vendor claims with a grain of salt. They need to ask if the shiny new toy will solve their real pain points or will just add work to check and verify outputs. This requires research and something that lawyers and legal professionals are good at: skepticism. Questioning. Not accepting claims at face value.<\/p>\n Lawyers and legal professionals have the analytical tools to cut through vendor hype. So use them.<\/p>\n Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n The post Mind The Gap Between What Lawyers Need And Many Vendors\u2019 Focus<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n Wait, what? Some recent research reveals a gap: 70% of legal tech investment targets vendors who focus on the 40% of time lawyers actually spend on things like legal research? Why?<\/p>\n Some research findings reported by Hwang Jae Hyuk<\/a> suggest this very thing. Hyuk is the founder and CEO of a company called AdminLess.AI<\/a> which appears to focus on automating administrative work for law firms.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know Hyuk and can\u2019t vouch for his findings. But they sound consistent with what I have observed and seen. I\u2019ll spell out the why in a moment. But first let\u2019s look at what he says in a recent LinkedIn post<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n Hyuk says lawyers and legal professionals spend 60% of their time on administrative work like file organization, back-office stuff, and verification (which I assume means in part verifying cites provided by GenAI output). Much of this stuff is nonbillable; Hyuk\u2019s findings are generally consistent in this regard with what Clio\u2019s yearly Legal Trends Reports<\/a> have consistently found. Forty percent of lawyer time according to Hyuk is spent on the legal work lawyers really like doing: the research and intellectually challenging activities.<\/p>\n Yet, according to Hyuk, investors in legal tech vendors focus 70% of their dollars on those that provide the sexy stuff: research tools, contract AI, and e-discovery. Many of these tools are based on GenAI. He notes that only six well-known legal tech providers focus on the 60% while over 15 providers focus on the 40%. He asks the very legitimate question: \u201cWhy this massive gap between what lawyers do and what the industry builds?\u201d<\/p>\n The answer reveals something troubling about current investment priorities in legal tech<\/a>.<\/p>\n Mind The Gap<\/strong><\/p>\n The gap is particularly surprising since it is the 60% work that AI tools and automation can do really well and accurately. The 40% work, the legal research? The focus of vendors here is on using GenAI to do this kind of work, which frankly it\u2019s not all that great at. It makes mistakes. It hallucinates. It\u2019s inaccurate. And as Hyuk notes and about which Melissa Rogozinski<\/a> and I have also written<\/a>, it requires constant verification and supervision.<\/p>\n Certainly, one could argue that investors are following that effort and pouring money into vendors that are working hard to eliminate these problems. They are just rewarding vendors who are spending the time and energy on the GenAI tools to make them better and eliminate the hallucinations and inaccuracies.<\/p>\n But I tend to think it\u2019s not necessarily that logical. First, the stuff that the six companies Hyuk references as working on tools to better and more efficiently deal with the 60% \u2013Docusign, Filevine, NetDocuments, Clio, Smokeball, and 8am (which he refers to as MyCase, which was the company name pre-recent rebranding) \u2014 are doing, well, boring stuff. (My apologies to all.) It\u2019s not sexy stuff. It\u2019s back-office work: billing, collections, intake, payments, etc. Stuff that\u2019s not billable but eats up incredible amounts of many lawyers\u2019 and legal professionals\u2019 days.<\/p>\n And pardon the sports reference but since we are in football playoff season here in the US, it\u2019s the blocking and tackling work that has to be done for the quarterbacks and wide receivers of the world to shine. To enable the lawyers and legal professionals to do what they are good at and like doing. It\u2019s the kind of work in sports and in the real world that rarely gets the attention that other work does. But it\u2019s just as important if not more so.<\/p>\n GenAI for GenAI\u2019s Sake<\/strong><\/p>\n Another reason for the gap: much of the 60% work is done not by GenAI tools but by standard AI tools and automation. Granted, I know from writing about and observing legal tech, that the six companies Hyuk names are working on GenAI tools to build on what they do best. But it\u2019s to achieve their mission to provide a core product to do the important but often boring business part of running a law firm. Their view is if a GenAI tool can make what we offer better, we will offer it. If not, we won\u2019t.<\/p>\n The 15 companies mentioned focusing on the 40% of lawyers\u2019 work often narrow their focus to GenAI and GenAI only, trying to make it work where it doesn\u2019t fit. To offer GenAI tools for GenAI\u2019s sake as opposed to solving real problems and pain points.<\/p>\n But because GenAI is all the rage these days, investors flock to those providers who are selling new and shiny toys. The investors are betting that the customers of these vendors will also flock to the new and shiny toys even though there may still be challenges with them and their implementation. And in spite of the fact that other tools that aren\u2019t GenAI can still solve many law firm challenges.<\/p>\n What\u2019s a Lawyer to Do?<\/strong><\/p>\n The fact that Hyuk\u2019s gap exists given the challenges with GenAI tools should in and of itself give law firms some pause when looking at AI and GenAI tools. It\u2019s legitimate to ask whether investors are pouring money into GenAI firms because it\u2019s the thing to do or do these tools offer real solutions to lawyers\u2019 and legal professionals\u2019 problems?<\/p>\n The bottom line: law firms would do well to take GenAI vendor claims with a grain of salt. They need to ask if the shiny new toy will solve their real pain points or will just add work to check and verify outputs. This requires research and something that lawyers and legal professionals are good at: skepticism. Questioning. Not accepting claims at face value.<\/p>\n Lawyers and legal professionals have the analytical tools to cut through vendor hype. So use them.<\/p>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2025\/06\/lawyer-robot-by-chatgpt-300x300.png?resize=300%2C300&ssl=1\" "\\"\\"")
\n