At the same time, it has also meant that AI-enabled “legal advice” is now just a chat prompt away.The implications of this have been well documented. Fair Work Commission general dismissal applications have jumped significantly over the past couple of years, as have the number of self-represented litigants, in part due to AI’s supporting role in providing advice and filling out forms.Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also announced in July that a specialist Fair Work court will be established, aiming to speed up the processing of underpayment cases sitting in this backlog.But while the AI tools in our pocket make legal information more accessible, they don’t necessarily translate to good outcomes. In addition to a court system that is increasingly clogged with more applications and cases, judges are increasingly frustrated with enormous amounts of AI-generated materials or fictitious legal precedents generated by AI advisers.Legal professionals are not immune from this either. Last year saw a well-publicised murder case in Victoria where a King’s Counsel’s submissions were found to contain fabricated quotes and citations to judgments that did not exist.As Justice James Elliott said at the time, “The ability of the court to rely upon the accuracy of submissions made by counsel is fundamental to the due administration of justice. It is not acceptable for artificial intelligence to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified.”This pattern has also played out globally with a string of incidents in the US, UK and Canada where law firms have been fined or sanctioned after citing non-existent precedents or fabricated evidence.But while the cautionary tales do exist, the technology still creates enormous opportunity if it is used carefully and in the right way.Legal technology company LexisNexis have recently released the results of an AI Sentiment Survey, which examined how more than 1500 lawyers in Australia and Asia are using AI in their work today and it tells an interesting story for the direction of the industry.Of the 94 per cent of lawyers using AI, the most common uses are in administrative drafting and document summarisation and analysis. Trailing close behind are things like translation and legal research.These are the high-volume, repetitive tasks that do not require the same level of judgment, experience or expertise. They are also the tasks that take a lot of time.While this is unsurprising (and perhaps a little reassuring), it does raise some questions.What does this do to billable hours? Does it reduce time and therefore costs associated with legal representation or advice, or does it reframe the billing model entirely to one driven by outputs rather than time?Also, as with many professions, with these tasks increasingly outsourced to AI, what is the pathway for junior lawyers to learn their craft, particularly as the judgment aspects of the role become increasingly important?However, perhaps even more confronting is that while use of the AI tools is increasing, the trust that they are accurate is not.In Australia, 79 per cent of lawyers are using artificial intelligence for research, yet 74 per cent report concerns about its accuracy and propensity to hallucinate. Both are increases on previous years, showing that the rush to adopt these time-saving tools is outpacing our trust in them.As in many industries, the tools are developing quickly, but it’s a strong reminder that legal AI is only as good as the governed, verified library of content it draws from.LexisNexis has been the leading resource in legal information for more than a century because it’s built on trust, credibility and security. As the technology landscape shifts, these are more important than ever.AI will be a valuable tool in law, but responsible adoption requires verified sources, human oversight and purpose-built tools that can achieve this. Getting this right is important as the law is one area where we can’t afford to get it wrong.Carol Chris is managing director, Pacific of LexisNexis.