Christine Rolland

While most have yet to implement AI, a clear shift is underway as the sector begins to explore its potential, the accountancy firm found.

Henderson Loggie’s AI in the Scottish Legal Profession study found that over 60 per cent of firms are not currently using AI-based tools, but many indicated that they expect to trial or adopt such tools in the near future. Despite growing awareness, only four per cent of respondents to reported using AI regularly, suggesting the sector is still in the early stages of adoption.

The survey revealed strong concerns about AI’s role in legal decision-making, with 96 per cent of respondents expressing some level of concern about potential bias in AI tools. However, more than one in four respondents said they were comfortable using AI to assist in legal decisions, indicating a balancing act between caution and competitiveness, and a desire not to fall behind.

Forensic accountant Christine Rolland, director at Henderson Loggie, said: “There’s clear interest in the possibilities AI offers the legal profession, but also understandable hesitation. A common thread is that legal professionals see the potential of AI but lack a clear understanding of how it works or what it can be trusted to do.

“Concerns about data privacy, ethical risks, and over-reliance on ‘black box’ systems remain persistent barriers. What we’re seeing is a sector that knows change is coming and wants to be ready for it, but needs the right support, education, and reassurance before fully embracing AI.”

Among firms already using AI, the most commonly reported benefit was faster legal research (53 per cent), followed by improved marketing ideas (32 per cent) and reduced workloads (26 per cent).

ore advanced applications, such as document and case data analysis, remain underused, with over half of respondents having yet to explore this area. Of those who have, 16 per cent reported significant improvements and 21 per cent saw slight gains.

When asked about overall efficiency, 58 per cent of respondents reported slight improvements from AI, while 42 per cent saw no change. These mixed results suggest that many firms are still working out how to effectively integrate AI tools into their workflows, or haven’t found the right application yet.

The survey found that legal professionals see strong potential for AI to enhance core areas of legal training, with 68 per cent identifying legal research skills as the top candidate for AI-assisted learning.

Drafting legal documents (54 per cent) and case law analysis (50 per cent) also ranked highly, pointing to AI’s value in developing key practical skills. There was also notable interest in personalised study plans (43 per cent), reflecting demand for more adaptive, tailored learning.

However, areas like courtroom simulation (14 per cent) and ethical decision-making (11 per cent) were seen as less suitable for AI, likely due to their reliance on human judgment and interaction.

Overall, respondents view AI as a tool best suited to boosting analytical and preparatory skills in legal education.