"Use AI and Lower Our Legal Fees"

Published 29 Sep.2025 16:00(KST)

UK and US Companies Demand AI Use from Law Firms
Korean Market Remains Quiet for Now

"We want law firms to use generative artificial intelligence (AI)."

According to a survey conducted by the Thomson Reuters Institute in April 2025, targeting over 1,700 people in English-speaking countries regarding the use of AI, 59% of respondents from corporate legal teams answered this way. Additionally, 8% of respondents said that when seeking law firms, their corporate clients requested that the use of AI be specified in bids or requests for proposals. Among law firms that use AI, 20% stated that they are measuring the extent of cost savings.

The Thomson Reuters Institute conducted a survey in April targeting over 1,700 people in English-speaking countries regarding the use of AI, and 59% of corporate legal team respondents answered accordingly. Reference photo to aid understanding of the article. Photo by Pixabay

Clients are increasingly demanding that law firms use AI to reduce legal costs, and they are seeking concrete figures on how AI is being utilized in legal work and how much it can save. This trend of requesting an “AI discount” is becoming the new normal, but the Korean legal market remains quiet for now. Experts attribute this to a combination of the domestic fee structure, low trust in legal AI, and technological limitations.

There are two main reasons why the Korean legal market remains relatively quiet, in contrast to global trends. First is the difference in fee structures. Yoon Jaeseon, managing attorney at Changcheon Law Firm (Judicial Research and Training Institute, 40th class), said, “Korea does not have a time charge culture,” but added, “However, even now, work hours are being reduced through AI, so there is room for price negotiation.”

The second reason is a lack of trust. Lee Sewon, managing attorney at Seohwadam Law Office (37th class), commented, “Trust in both the capabilities of AI and the ability of the retained attorney to utilize AI must be a prerequisite.” Currently, there are concerns that using AI may be perceived not as a supplement to a lawyer’s skills, but rather as a sign of insufficient capability.

This low level of trust appears to stem from a fundamental technological gap. Simply training general-purpose AI engines (such as ChatGPT) on case law data is not sufficient to handle the complexity of legal work. In the United States, legal AI solutions such as Lexis+ AI go beyond case law analysis and document drafting to support advanced tasks like analyzing the opposing party’s logic and developing litigation strategies. Consulting firm Forrester has analyzed that using such specialized AI can reduce the amount of work outsourced to law firms by 13%. In contrast, a corporate counsel in Korea remarked, “Currently, AI-generated answers are not reliable, so it actually takes more time to verify and revise them.”

Most agree that changes in legal costs due to AI adoption are an “inevitable future” for the Korean legal market as well, but one attorney pointed out that the speed of this change depends on technological advancement. He said, “Unlike in the United States, where AI can replace junior associates, if legal AI in Korea remains at the level of searching for a few precedents, meaningful change will inevitably be slow.”