{"id":162868,"date":"2026-09-14T13:42:55","date_gmt":"2026-09-14T21:42:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/09\/14\/the-ai-workplace-gender-gap-in-the-legal-profession\/"},"modified":"2026-09-14T13:42:55","modified_gmt":"2026-09-14T21:42:55","slug":"the-ai-workplace-gender-gap-in-the-legal-profession","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/09\/14\/the-ai-workplace-gender-gap-in-the-legal-profession\/","title":{"rendered":"The AI Workplace Gender Gap In The Legal Profession"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ed. note<\/u>: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at\u00a0<\/em>MothersEsquire<\/em><\/a>. Welcome Jeanine Donohue back to our pages. Click <\/em>here<\/em><\/a> if you\u2019d like to donate to MothersEsquire.<\/em><\/p>\n

I live and work in San Francisco, so AI is everywhere \u2014 on billboards, as the topic of conversation on public transportation, and even within my law firm, which has an AI usage policy that is continually being reviewed and refreshed. I will admit that I have been a late adopter, especially when I see headlines of attorneys here in California being sanctioned for failing to independently verify their AI-generated research.<\/p>\n

A recent headline, however, particularly caught my attention: a study found that women attorneys are less likely to use AI in their practice and that there is a \u201cremarkably consistent\u201d gender gap in the adoption of AI. Like women lawyers need yet another barrier to widen the gender gap.<\/p>\n

Published in 2025, a working paper on the global use of AI found that women are 20% less likely to use AI technologies. The research paper, \u201cGlobal Evidence on Gender Gaps and Generative AI,\u201d was written by researchers from Stanford, Harvard, and the University of California. They reviewed studies involving more than 140,000 people worldwide and concluded that the gender gap in generative AI use was \u201cnearly universal.\u201d<\/p>\n

This conclusion is astonishing when you consider that the use of AI \u2014 and its potential benefits \u2014 would seemingly apply equally to both men and women.<\/p>\n

According to the study, women may be more concerned with the ethics of using these tools and may also fear they will be judged more harshly in the workplace for relying on them. One of the study\u2019s authors, Harvard Business School Associate Professor Rembrand Koning, stated: \u201cWomen face greater penalties in being judged as not having expertise in different fields. They might be worried that someone would think even though they got the answer right, they \u2018cheated\u2019 by using ChatGPT.\u201d<\/p>\n

Within the workplace, men use AI more frequently than women. According to CNBC\u2019s fifth annual SurveyMonkey Women at Work survey, 64% of women say they never use AI at work, compared to 55% of men.<\/p>\n

In addition to widening the gender gap at work, women\u2019s reluctance to use AI may also impact career advancement. If we are not using technology that increases productivity \u2014 and that is increasingly being required by clients seeking more efficient billing \u2014 we risk falling behind our male counterparts.<\/p>\n

Law firms, and the economy more broadly, may also lose significant potential growth. As Koning explains: \u201cThese gaps are bad for women because they\u2019re not being as productive as they could be, but they are also bad for the economy because we\u2019re losing out on economic growth we could have had.\u201d<\/p>\n

Most concerning, at least to me, is that without sufficient input from women, AI systems may reinforce gender stereotypes. Koning asks: \u201cIf it is learning predominantly from men, does that cause these tools to potentially respond differently or be biased in ways that could have long-term effects?\u201d<\/p>\n

Those long-term effects could further broaden the gender gap.<\/p>\n

So What\u2019s The Solution?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since learning of this disparity, I signed up for a free AI learning course through Caltech. I do not want to be left behind, nor do I want to contribute to the gender gap or reinforce gender stereotypes. A simple Google search for free AI training will reveal countless courses. Westlaw and LexisNexis also offer training for legal research and AI-assisted tools.<\/p>\n

Koning also urges companies to create a workplace culture where using AI is not only normalized, but encouraged:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn talking with companies about using generative AI, places where the gaps seem smallest are those where leaders are saying, \u2018We want everyone to adopt these tools. Some stuff is going to work and some stuff is not, and that is OK.\u2019 If you do that, you are going to go a long way toward closing the gap in adoption.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, as we were all taught in law school: always check your work. Verify every case citation, confirm every source, and independently fact-check every AI-generated output.<\/p>\n

Using AI in your legal practice can make you more productive, help narrow the gender gap, and ensure that generative AI benefits from the female perspective as well.<\/p>\n

\n

Jeanine M. Donohue is a member of Buchalter\u2019s Litigation Practice Group and Wineries, Vineyards and Breweries Practice Group. She practices in the firm\u2019s St. Helena and San Francisco offices. With over 30 years of experience, Jeanine is a big picture strategist who quickly appreciates the 30,000 foot major issues, while also being attentive to the nuances and important details of each matter she handles. Jeanine maintains a broad litigation practice that includes insurance recovery, commercial, real estate and products liability. Since 2013, Jeanine has served as Outside General Counsel to four active 524(g) settlement trusts with over $1 billion in assets. She manages all outside trust litigation including insurance coverage litigation, bankruptcy and adversary proceedings.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The post The AI Workplace Gender Gap In The Legal Profession<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ed. note<\/u>: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at\u00a0<\/em>MothersEsquire<\/em><\/a>. Welcome Jeanine Donohue back to our pages. Click <\/em>here<\/em><\/a> if you\u2019d like to donate to MothersEsquire.<\/em><\/p>\n

I live and work in San Francisco, so AI is everywhere \u2014 on billboards, as the topic of conversation on public transportation, and even within my law firm, which has an AI usage policy that is continually being reviewed and refreshed. I will admit that I have been a late adopter, especially when I see headlines of attorneys here in California being sanctioned for failing to independently verify their AI-generated research.<\/p>\n

A recent headline, however, particularly caught my attention: a study found that women attorneys are less likely to use AI in their practice and that there is a \u201cremarkably consistent\u201d gender gap in the adoption of AI. Like women lawyers need yet another barrier to widen the gender gap.<\/p>\n

Published in 2025, a working paper on the global use of AI found that women are 20% less likely to use AI technologies. The research paper, \u201cGlobal Evidence on Gender Gaps and Generative AI,\u201d was written by researchers from Stanford, Harvard, and the University of California. They reviewed studies involving more than 140,000 people worldwide and concluded that the gender gap in generative AI use was \u201cnearly universal.\u201d<\/p>\n

This conclusion is astonishing when you consider that the use of AI \u2014 and its potential benefits \u2014 would seemingly apply equally to both men and women.<\/p>\n

According to the study, women may be more concerned with the ethics of using these tools and may also fear they will be judged more harshly in the workplace for relying on them. One of the study\u2019s authors, Harvard Business School Associate Professor Rembrand Koning, stated: \u201cWomen face greater penalties in being judged as not having expertise in different fields. They might be worried that someone would think even though they got the answer right, they \u2018cheated\u2019 by using ChatGPT.\u201d<\/p>\n

Within the workplace, men use AI more frequently than women. According to CNBC\u2019s fifth annual SurveyMonkey Women at Work survey, 64% of women say they never use AI at work, compared to 55% of men.<\/p>\n

In addition to widening the gender gap at work, women\u2019s reluctance to use AI may also impact career advancement. If we are not using technology that increases productivity \u2014 and that is increasingly being required by clients seeking more efficient billing \u2014 we risk falling behind our male counterparts.<\/p>\n

Law firms, and the economy more broadly, may also lose significant potential growth. As Koning explains: \u201cThese gaps are bad for women because they\u2019re not being as productive as they could be, but they are also bad for the economy because we\u2019re losing out on economic growth we could have had.\u201d<\/p>\n

Most concerning, at least to me, is that without sufficient input from women, AI systems may reinforce gender stereotypes. Koning asks: \u201cIf it is learning predominantly from men, does that cause these tools to potentially respond differently or be biased in ways that could have long-term effects?\u201d<\/p>\n

Those long-term effects could further broaden the gender gap.<\/p>\n

So What\u2019s The Solution?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Since learning of this disparity, I signed up for a free AI learning course through Caltech. I do not want to be left behind, nor do I want to contribute to the gender gap or reinforce gender stereotypes. A simple Google search for free AI training will reveal countless courses. Westlaw and LexisNexis also offer training for legal research and AI-assisted tools.<\/p>\n

Koning also urges companies to create a workplace culture where using AI is not only normalized, but encouraged:<\/p>\n

\u201cIn talking with companies about using generative AI, places where the gaps seem smallest are those where leaders are saying, \u2018We want everyone to adopt these tools. Some stuff is going to work and some stuff is not, and that is OK.\u2019 If you do that, you are going to go a long way toward closing the gap in adoption.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, as we were all taught in law school: always check your work. Verify every case citation, confirm every source, and independently fact-check every AI-generated output.<\/p>\n

Using AI in your legal practice can make you more productive, help narrow the gender gap, and ensure that generative AI benefits from the female perspective as well.<\/p>\n

\n

Jeanine M. Donohue is a member of Buchalter\u2019s Litigation Practice Group and Wineries, Vineyards and Breweries Practice Group. She practices in the firm\u2019s St. Helena and San Francisco offices. With over 30 years of experience, Jeanine is a big picture strategist who quickly appreciates the 30,000 foot major issues, while also being attentive to the nuances and important details of each matter she handles. Jeanine maintains a broad litigation practice that includes insurance recovery, commercial, real estate and products liability. Since 2013, Jeanine has served as Outside General Counsel to four active 524(g) settlement trusts with over $1 billion in assets. She manages all outside trust litigation including insurance coverage litigation, bankruptcy and adversary proceedings.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ed. note: This is the latest installment in a series of posts on motherhood in the legal profession, in partnership with our friends at\u00a0MothersEsquire. Welcome Jeanine Donohue back to our pages. Click here if you\u2019d like to donate to MothersEsquire. I live and work in San Francisco, so AI is everywhere \u2014 on billboards, as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":162847,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-162868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162868","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=162868"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162868\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/162847"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162868"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162868"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}