The survey found that law firms have reversed a recent trend in law library personnel and associated costs, taking what had been a 4.7% decline between 2017-2022 in the number of library and research personnel as compared to the rest of the firm, and turning that into 5.3% growth in personnel over the past year. In fact, of all the individual roles measured by the survey, knowledge management professionals (+26.3%) and library & research management (+9.8%) saw the largest year-over-year growth in terms of full-time equivalent employees.

On the other hand, however, there is the looming influence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), which is set to transform how the legal profession operates, by even the most modest accounts. And part of that transformation means automating and productizing some law firm tasks, including those undertaken by law librarians and information professionals. This transformation will necessitate that law library professionals learn new, more tech-driven skills to adapt to how work processes will transform across their organizations.

So where does that leave the law librarian community? The Hot Topic: Artificial Intelligence & the Future of Law Libraries session at the聽 (AALL) conference attempted to chart two potential futures 鈥� the best- and worst-case scenarios 鈥� and describe how to prepare AALL membership for success.

The vicious and virtuous

The panel presented the results of AALL鈥檚 Future of Law Libraries: Artificial Intelligence, Opportunities, and Advancement initiative 鈥� a series of roundtables held at various institutions throughout the 2023-2024 academic year. At each of these roundtables, participants tackled various parts of law libraries and how AI will impact their growth and operations into the future.

In each of these areas, participants were asked to envision two separate futures: a virtuous cycle, in which law libraries are able to thrive in the age of GenAI; and a vicious cycle, in which technology hampers or even causes the demise of the modern law library. Then, participants were asked to consider how law libraries would potentially arrive at each of those points.

The panel stressed that law librarians need to be advocates, both for themselves and for the necessary technology to position law libraries as a trusted resource for technological knowledge and execution.

Here is what those roundtable participants considered the best and worst-case scenarios for various aspects of law libraries:

Staffing 鈥� The vicious cycle occurs as law libraries begin to cut staff again as AI replaces their capabilities. In a particularly dire scenario, this could even mean dropping down to just one employee in a library, which is overall managed by AI. The panel participants said libraries may land in this future if librarians don鈥檛 get out in front 鈥渁nd make a case for the value of the library.鈥�

In the virtuous cycle, librarians do just that, finding a way to leverage AI to demonstrate their value. And indeed, in this scenario, librarians are valued by their institutions and receive institutional support to be proactive and a leader in AI. It鈥檚 important, the panel said, to 鈥渉ire and train our staff specifically to be the experts in these areas.鈥�

Services 鈥� In the vicious cycle, less expensive, automated tech does things that look similar to human beings, but at lower quality. This causes stakeholders to decide librarians and their services aren鈥檛 worth the cost. Law libraries could end up in this scenario if they 鈥渇ail to show our value on top of technology.鈥�

The virtuous cycle, meanwhile, pairs law libraries with technology for even greater services than previously thought imaginable. Librarians use GenAI to eliminate drudgery and streamline workflows. They also become experts in the use of GenAI, becoming a hub for the organization and 鈥渟howing people why it鈥檚 not scary.鈥�

Space 鈥擳he vicious cycle envisions a world in which law libraries themselves are largely underutilized. Similar to trends following the introduction of eBooks, AI may reduce physical foot traffic, leading to fewer resources for the library. This could also result in community disconnect if fewer people are coming in-person to the library 鈥� a scenario described by one participant as 鈥渁 dystopian hellscape.鈥�

While there may not necessarily be unlimited space in the virtuous cycle, it is, more importantly, optimized space. Here, librarians are seen as experts and can create spaces for those in their organizations to learn about AI and get guidance. Librarians can also utilize technology to create flexible spaces, using libraries in a variety of ways to strengthen and support community connections.

Instruction 鈥� The vicious cycle has AI doing what they librarians do to instruct their charges, but on a larger scale. In this future, print media is dead, so there is no need for information curators because content providers are offering their services directly to subscribers. User standards are downgraded as long as the product is good enough, AI models that are tough to build and maintain eventually break down, and libraries can鈥檛 right these wrongs.

On the other side, the virtuous cycle sees librarians spending time learning about AI and translating their knowledge for their organizations. Librarians learn the difference between hype and reality, and let AI do what it does well while perfecting other tasks like creating niche content. This allows for reallocation of resources rather than losing them, transitioning from being storehouses to creators and curators of information. As one panelist said, 鈥淥wn the AI, and don鈥檛 seed the critical considerations.鈥�

Needs and seeds

With those potential pathways in mind, the AALL panel laid out what it called 鈥渘eeds and seeds鈥� 鈥� the tasks that today鈥檚 law librarians need to undertake to achieve a virtuous future, and the takeaways that will help them accomplish those tasks.

For the needs, the panel first stressed that law librarians need to be advocates, both for themselves and for the necessary technology to position law libraries as a trusted resource for technological knowledge and execution. Law librarians should seek to be part of decision-making processes for any AI implementation, panelists said, adding that librarians also should advocate for legal research instruction at all levels, and for preserving and advancing the profession of law librarians as critical thinkers and evaluators of legal information.

The [GenAI] transformation will necessitate that law library professionals learn new, more tech-driven skills to adapt to how work processes will transform across their organizations.

The panel also stressed the importance of working throughout the organization on AI initiatives. Law librarians should team with privacy experts to seek proactive and ethical privacy policy development, advance technology, and ensure its proper usage. Teaming with finance colleagues, law librarians should push for increased financial support and resource allocation. This includes resources not just for AI implementation, but also for training and ensuring that librarians and the organization as a whole are upskilled. Finally, law librarians, acting with the organization as a whole, should promote their own expertise, letting IT departments, legal counsel, leadership committees, and other groups know what鈥檚 going on and why libraries are an important resource.

To that end, the panel also viewed collaboration as a seed, a key tool in librarians鈥� belts to be a part of the future. Law librarians have the ability to not only use data effectively, panelists explained, but to create new and unique data that will be a crucial part of the future. Even today, librarians can spearhead tasks like converting print publications into formats that can be ingested, collaborate on research and pro bono centers, and begin to build democratized models that can spread to all.

Finally, as was a theme throughout the conference, the panel urged AALL attendees to keep this discussion going, both in private conversations and in public proclamations such as annual reports from the library. Given the growing impact of GenAI, time is of the essence, panelists added. 鈥淲e need to do this now. The difference in discussions between the October and May roundtables was incredible. If we wait six months, we鈥檙e going to be left behind.鈥�

However, the current focus of legal innovation also begs an interesting question: How do you help those that you might not even know have a problem?

Judge Keven M.P O’Grady of the Kansas 10th Judicial District, in Johnson County outside of Kansas City, was running into this exact problem. A former family law attorney himself, Judge O鈥橤rady鈥檚 docket primarily deals with family law cases. And like many courts in the US, his court has dealt with capacity issues, a rising case load, and notably, dissatisfaction within the court itself. In particular, he noted that because court systems are designed to deal with the worst cases, those cases that had a relatively simple problem at their core were still subject to complex solutions.

鈥淎s a legal system, since we鈥檙e worried about the problem cases, we鈥檝e set up all these hurdles and hoops for people to jump through,鈥� Judge O鈥橤rady explained. 鈥淚t鈥檚 no surprise that people who come in for a simple process begin to resent the legal system.鈥�

A solution can be found through technology, however, as he and University of Colorado School of Law professor Staci J. Pratt told the crowd at the (AALL) conference. And by providing a new way to traverse the court system, Judge O鈥橤rady鈥檚 court not only has engendered higher satisfaction for family law litigants but has created a vital data repository that can aid the court in identifying key issues to confront for future projects.

The 鈥榯riage鈥� line

As explained in the AALL conference session Advancing A2J: Building Collaborative Partnerships with State Courts to Improve Usability of Judicial Legal Applications for All Users, Judge O鈥橤rady partnered with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to develop a 鈥渢riage鈥� system. Similar to a medical triage that determines the level of care an incoming patient should receive, Judge O鈥橤rady鈥檚 court sought to sort family law litigants into three categories: Pathway 1 (low-touch, fast-track); Pathway 2 (standard litigants); and Pathway 3 (high-conflict litigants). This way, he said, courts are 鈥渦sing our time on cases where time needs to be spent.鈥�

鈥淭he idea is that we want to change the focus of how we鈥檙e handling cases from the process and the judges鈥� to focus it on the children and families,鈥� he continued. 鈥淲hat we found is, by focusing on the family and what the family needs rather than what the court needs, we are increasing litigant satisfaction.鈥�

The process to get to this point was not an easy one, he explained. First, the court engaged community feedback 鈥� from professionals such as lawyers, therapists, and psychologists 鈥� to determine what problems litigants actually need to fix. Following the creation of a series of neutral questions to ask new litigants, the court then tried to triage using paper forms, but soon found they didn鈥檛 have the resources to actually analyze the data they received back. Then, the court tried to build a website, but the process was too difficult for court IT staff, and many vendors鈥� prices were exorbitant. Then, after finding a vendor in Australia who could do the work, the vendor went bankrupt shortly after the site launched.

During this process, however, Judge O鈥橤rady鈥檚 court found that it wasn鈥檛 alone in trying to innovate this process. The NCSC relayed that similar innovation programs were taking place across the country, from Massachusetts to Florida. In particular, NCSC connected Judge O鈥橤rady with a team at Arizona State University, which helped re-design the intake forms.

The result was a formalized journey that integrated technology and process in a way that was aimed at making the family law journey as easy as possible for litigants.

Iterating and updating

Those looking to emulate systems similar to what the Kansas court did will find that very few technologies arrived fully formed. To perfect his court鈥檚 system, for example, Judge O鈥橤rady turned to Prof. Pratt and her team at the University of Colorado School of Law. Pratt helped coordinate a review of the triage system using Human Centered Legal Design, a system spearheaded by Margaret Hagan, Executive Director of Stanford Law School鈥檚 Legal Design Lab.

At the core of the review, Pratt said, is that litigants 鈥� and especially pro se litigants 鈥� need to understand the questions that they鈥檙e answering.聽鈥淭he core of usability analysis is listening to users. That means testing the tool with real people,鈥� she explained. 鈥淭he reality is, however, how you decide to answer your questions will have a consequence on how your case is treated.鈥�

With this in mind, the U of Colorado Law team set about conducting moderated observation-based usability analysis 鈥� or in other words, interviews with a diverse set of potential users to see how they would use the triage tool. The interview team asked respondents a series of questions based off usability heuristics developed by usability pioneer and co-founder of Nielsen Norman Group, Jakob Nielsen. These questions queried users鈥� initial observations, the takeaway or understanding from the first page, if users can describe the purpose of the tool, and more. Pratt also said that these interviews don鈥檛 need to be labor-intensive, noting that her team found key pain points through just eight interviews.

From there, Pratt鈥檚 team provided recommendations, such as providing a clear road map with next steps after filling out the form; directing users to a status bar during the question process; avoiding legal jargon; and incorporating trauma-informed design for sensitive issues.

But the improvements won鈥檛 stop there, Pratt and Judge O鈥橤rady noted. For court systems looking to undertake a similar process, Pratt emphasized that these designs are meant to be iterative. 鈥淵ou never solve the problem, but you help make it better,鈥� she added.

And for any of these improvements, they both emphasized that the work must remain user-centered, with litigants at the forefront. Pratt said that for similar situated court systems and law librarians looking to follow their lead: 鈥淢ake sure users鈥� needs and goals are your lodestar for decision-making.鈥�