Over Half of Victorian Lawyers Utilize AI, Yet Only 25% Reduce Client Fees

According to a recent study, over half of the lawyers in Victoria have begun integrating AI technology into their legal practices. Despite this technological adoption, only a little over a quarter have reported reducing fees for clients as a direct consequence of increased efficiency.

Interestingly, many lawyers noted that clients who consult chatbots for legal advice have inadvertently increased their workload, necessitating corrections of AI-generated errors. The 2026 census, comprising 2,221 lawyers and conducted by the Victorian Legal Services Board and the Commissioner’s Legal Services Research Centre, revealed a significant rise in AI usage among legal professionals, jumping from 37% to 55% in just one year.

The previous 2025 report indicated higher AI adoption rates among lawyers under 30, a trend that has largely evened out by 2026, although usage remains considerably lower among those aged 60 and above. The highest adoption of AI was recorded in sectors such as trade practices (85%), banking and finance (78%), and information technology and telecommunications (78%). In contrast, usage in criminal law (29%), family law (45%), and administrative law (46%) remained much lower.

While a variety of AI tools have been developed specifically for the legal field, the majority of lawyers—79%—reported utilizing general consumer chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Copilot. Legal-specific tools were only used by 22% of the surveyed lawyers.

Despite the increased implementation of AI technologies, a direct impact on fees has not been generally observed. Only 26% of lawyers indicated that AI usage led to lower charges for their clients. Notably, fee reductions were more frequently reported by those serving business clients (34%) compared to individual clients (23%). Some lawyers even noted that AI had allowed them to engage in work that was previously unfeasible (18%).

Dr. Georgie Rychner, the principal researcher and co-author of the report, suggested that fee reductions in corporate settings could be linked to clients’ ongoing engagement with legal services. “These clients possess a high level of legal understanding,” she observed. “They are likely using AI in their practices, which enhances their ability to negotiate lower fees, unlike clients within the community legal sector.”

Rychner also pointed out that the anticipated efficiency gains from AI have not materialized as expected. In a previous survey, a staggering 89% of practitioners reported taking steps to verify AI output accuracy, which may have diluted the expected benefits of using such technology.

In 2026, the number of clients utilizing AI for their own legal research surged, with 46% of lawyers claiming their clients often arrived with misleading or inaccurate information, and 41% reported receiving AI-generated documents that were riddled with errors. Almost half of the lawyers noted an increase in the time and effort spent correcting such issues, in stark contrast to just 19% who found their workload lessened.

“What we are hearing is that clients are more frequently arriving with misleading or inaccurate information about their legal problems, rather than a better understanding of them,” Rychner stated, emphasizing the need for further research into client perspectives.

The rise of AI in legal practices has raised concerns among courts and legal bodies across Australia, which have been addressing these issues since 2023. A Victorian lawyer recently faced sanctions after using AI-generated false citations in court—an unprecedented move in Australia. Similar investigations have taken place in Western Australia and New South Wales regarding lawyers utilizing AI to produce erroneous legal documents.

In April, the federal court instituted new guidelines concerning the use of generative AI, while Chief Justice Stephen Gageler highlighted last year that the prevalence of AI-generated content in legal cases had reached an “unsustainable phase.”