Benchmark data can prove to be invaluable when making decisions about the future of your law firm. Understanding how others in the legal profession are using technology to streamline workflows and increase revenues can make all the difference.

That’s where the recently released 2025 Legal Industry Report from AffiniPay comes in. This report, published annually, offers insight into how legal professionals from firms of all sizes and practice areas are approaching and benefiting from technology adoption. Over 2,800 legal professionals were surveyed for this year’s survey, which covers a wide range of topics, including artificial intelligence adoption, financial management software choices and the continued shift to remote and hybrid work environments.

The data reveals notable trends surrounding legal professionals’ technology choices and outcomes, including how software adoption impacts firm profitability and how remote work choices are changing the landscape of law practice.

Increased interest in AI adoption

With generative AI continuing to make headlines, it’s not surprising that the data shows that interest in it has increased since last year’s report. For example, in 2024, 31% of legal professionals reported using generative AI tools for work, up from 27% in 2023.

Interestingly, the rate of adoption varied across firm size and practice areas. Immigration practitioners led generative AI usage, with 47% incorporating it into their daily workflows. Other practice areas, such as personal injury (37%), civil litigation (36%) and criminal law (28%), also reported high usage.

Despite the individual growth rates, the survey showed that legal-specific generative AI adoption at the firm level slowed slightly. Only 21% of firms reported using AI in 2024, down from 24% in 2023. This decline is likely due to firms being in the exploratory phase—testing AI tools in specific use cases or pilot programs, rather than fully integrating the technology. The overall sentiment shows that while AI is still being explored, many firms are taking a cautious and measured approach.

At the firm level, civil litigation firms reported the highest generative AI adoption rate, at 27%, followed by personal injury and family law firms, at 20% each. Trusts and estate firms and criminal law practices had lower adoption rates, at 18% each. Immigration firms reported the lowest adoption rate, at 17%.

Overall, the data shows that for those who have adopted generative AI tools, they are relying on them quite often. Among frequent users, 45% use AI daily, and 40% use it weekly. The most common tasks accomplished with it include drafting correspondence (54%), brainstorming ideas (47%), conducting general research (46%) and summarizing documents (39%).

Financial management tools for profitability and stability

Survey data also highlights how firms are increasingly adopting financial management software to improve financial workflows. In particular, legal-specific accounting and bookkeeping software has become a key tool for many firms. Respondents indicate that 37% of their firms have legal accounting software built into their firm’s practice management system, while 16% said it’s built into their firm’s billing software. Another 11% use software that is integrated with, rather than built into, their firm’s law practice management platform, and 16% reported adoption of a stand-alone legal accounting tool.

The survey data shows that legal accounting and bookkeeping tools have notably increased efficiency, with nearly 26% of firms reporting one to five hours reclaimed per month. Another 17% reduced workloads by six to 10 hours, 7% saved 15 or more hours each month, and 4% recovered a whopping 11 to 15 hours.

Another valuable tool for improving workflows is legal billing tools. The legal professionals surveyed (80%) relied on invoicing software, with 27% saving one to five hours per month, 16% saving six to 10 hours, and 12% saving 11 or more hours. The end benefit of the time saved using legal accounting and billing tools? Significant gains in productivity and profitability.

Growth of online payment processing

The report also highlights the increasing adoption of online payment processing software, with 82% of respondents sharing that their firms accept credit and/or debit card payments in 2024, up from 78% in 2023. This adoption has resulted in time savings and financial impact. More than a third of respondents (35%) saved between one to five hours per month using online payment systems, while 14% saved six to 10 hours. Also of note is that firms accepting card payments reported improved collection rates, with 59% of firms noting that their collection rates increased “somewhat more” or “significantly more” each month.

The growing use of online payment solutions is indicative of a broader trend toward automating tedious and time-consuming administrative tasks that were previously manual. By offering more payment options, firms are not only improving their financial stability but also freeing up time to devote to more client work and firm growth.

Remote and hybrid work adoption

Finally, the report addressed remote and hybrid work, which has become a staple for many firms. About three-fourths of survey respondents reported using cloud-based remote working tools, with videoconferencing (79%), e-signatures (78%) and e-filing (76%) ranking the highest.

Additionally, the data showed that the hybrid work model has gained traction in the legal profession. According to the survey results, 28% of firms operate fully in office, while 21% use hybrid schedules for all team members. Another 19% of firms are fully remote, and 18% adopt hybrid schedules for some staff members.

Just as remote and hybrid work continued post-pandemic, so too did participation in virtual court proceedings, with 34% of respondents attending virtual hearings a few times per month, 21% a few times per week and 5% every day.

Even so, preferences for in-person appearances remain strong, especially for certain types of proceedings. Half of respondents prefer to avoid virtual hearings, followed by jury trials (45%), bench trials (43%) and motion arguments (39%). However, practice areas significantly impacted these results.

For example, trust and estate professionals were more likely than the overall average to prefer virtual litigation proceedings, with only 36% opting for in-person jury trials, followed by bench trials (35%) and motion arguments and depositions (at 30% each).

In contrast, civil litigation and personal injury lawyers showed a stronger preference for in-person proceedings, with 56% each favoring jury trials, and 46% and 49%, respectively, choosing in-person depositions. Similarly, criminal law practitioners also leaned toward in-person proceedings, with 59% preferring hearings, 58% jury trials, 55% bench trials and 49% motion arguments.

Immigration lawyers, on the other hand, were less likely to prefer in-person litigation, with below-average preferences for motion arguments (26%), status conferences (22%) and depositions (19%).

In conclusion

The AffiniPay 2025 Legal Industry Report highlights a range of preferences and trends within the legal profession. While generative AI remains a focus, the data shows that firms are also adopting proven cloud-based technologies for billing, payments and remote work, highlighting an increasing reliance on specialized tools that enhance efficiency, save time and improve financial outcomes.

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

I’ve tried dozens of cases in my career. As with anything else, the more you look at something, the more pronounced the cracks and deficiencies become. Interestingly, Clint Eastwood’s supposed directorial goodbye, Juror #2, does a great job of focusing on one of those deficiencies, namely juror honesty and how it affects the rule of law.

With a limited theater release in November, the film, now available on Amazon Prime, stars Nicholas Hoult as Justin Kemp, a recovering alcoholic who received a jury summons. Through various flashbacks, we learn that although he has struggled with addiction, he seems to have his life back on track—with a baby on the way to boot.

At jury selection, he discloses to the judge that his wife has a high-risk pregnancy. The trial lawyer in me couldn’t help but chuckle when the judge noted that if he could work his day job with his wife at home alone, he could spend that time in court.

We quickly learn the trial concerns heavy allegations: after a drunken night at the bar, which included a big argument, the defendant is accused of killing his then-girlfriend by blunt-force trauma to the head as she walked home after the fight. The prosecution alleges he left her body in a ditch over the railing of the road.

The defendant, James Michael Sythe, is played by Gabriel Basso. His girlfriend, Kendall Carter, is played by Clint Eastwood’s daughter Francesca Eastwood.

Most of the movie’s first half-hour or so speeds by with a timeframe consumed with quick, exceptional vignettes from trial. The swift scene changes don’t focus too much on substance. Usually that would bother me, but the style the attorneys employ is immediately accessible. The drama is there, but it’s not overdone.

Questions and concerns

As the trial moves forward and the relevant facts begin to take shape, Justin Kemp, the juror, realizes he was at that same bar the night in question, processing a recent miscarriage. Despite spending the evening staring at a drink without breaking his sobriety, as he was driving home in the rain, he dropped his phone, and the car hit something in the dark … at the exact spot where Kendall Carter’s body was found over the railing.

The film hit a lot of different chords for me. I kept coming back to the notion that the juror had a duty to reveal this information about that night and that location. Jurors swear to answer questions truthfully during jury selection, and they hopefully honor that fact. Moreover, jurors have to alert the court when they feel they can no longer be fair and impartial—no matter when those thoughts and emotions rear their head.

The juror thinks back—after the collision, he got out of the car and looked around. He didn’t see anything or anyone, and due to a Deer Crossing sign on the side of the road, he understandably put two and two together. However, he spirals, and his negative thoughts get the best of him. Was the death his fault?

He never tells anyone about his whereabouts, although he tries his best during deliberations to prevent the jury from quickly convicting the defendant.

Without giving away too much, the movie’s pivotal question comes down to the juror’s honesty, and the concept of honesty in general. He isn’t sure if he hit the girlfriend, but he knows it’s possible. Should he let the defendant take the fall or fall on the proverbial sword himself?

Everybody lies sometimes

I’ve had trials where a seated juror approached the judge to admit that, for whatever reason, they could no longer be fair to one side or the other. And you know what? I respect the hell out of that. It still gives me faith that the system works when we’re open and honest.

At the same time, though, I know some potential jurors are less than totally honest about their perspectives, biases and knowledge of relevant facts. Sadly, a lot of this dishonesty tends to happen during jury selection, a state of the trial where those notions should and easily can be revealed to the attorneys and judge.

The fact that information is kept hidden is odd because voir dire is like an interview for a job no one wants. Disclosing that bias would be an easy out of the venire, but something keeps them from relaying the information. Even though it’s usually obvious when someone doesn’t want to be there, most folks still do everything they can to put on their best appearances and swear they’ll follow the law. People don’t want to look bad in a public setting.

So, jurors rarely admit they can’t be fair and impartial. I’ve had sex crime victims tell me during jury selection for a sex crime case that they can put their experiences aside. Can they? Maybe. Is it likely their past trauma might sneak in and bias their opinion? Certainly.

I’m sure some people have faith and conviction they’ve healed to the point where they’ve “moved on” from a horrible event like that. But a juror with that background usually isn’t getting past a concerned attorney’s preemptory challenges. Other issues aren’t always so apparent, like jurors who lie about their ability to refrain from drawing a negative implication or inference from my client’s decision not to testify.

The forgotten Fifth Amendment

I once tried a child sex crimes case where we felt we had a pretty good defense. The prosecutor admitted she wasn’t confident in a conviction, and the trial went mostly in our favor.

As with most of my cases, I didn’t know for sure whether my client would testify. We’d planned for the possibility, but once the government’s evidence came out, we felt there was more to lose than gain by getting on the stand.

I try to get ahead of either possibility by discussing the prosecution’s burden and my client’s constitutional rights during voir dire. All the potential jurors swore in various ways, multiple times, that they wouldn’t hold it against my client if he didn’t take the stand. Moreover, prior to closing arguments, as with every other trial, the judge instructed the jury it could not draw an adverse inference from my client’s decision not to testify.

After he was convicted, I contacted the jurors to see if any of them would speak with me. That’s the best way to perfect your craft and better your advocacy. Only one of the jurors was willing to talk.

Through tears, she explained that the other jurors had argued my client must be guilty since he wasn’t willing to take the stand. She reminded them what I had said and the judge had instructed. She said it was to no avail, and they finally wore her down for a unanimous verdict. I did what I could to get that information before the court, but Oklahoma’s codification of Federal Rule of Evidence 606, which prohibits jurors testifying to matters or statements occurring during deliberations aside from a few exceptions, ruled the day.

After that trial, I had a bit of an existential examination. How could the jurors lie straight to my face? How could they disregard their oath and the instructions they received?

As Juror #2 shows, though, maybe there were other factors at play beyond my knowledge.

Still, it doesn’t make it right or OK.

---

Adam R. Banner is the founder and lead attorney of the Oklahoma Legal Group, a criminal defense law firm in Oklahoma City. His practice focuses solely on state and federal criminal defense. He represents the accused against allegations of sex crimes, violent crimes, drug crimes and white-collar crimes.

The study of law isn’t for everyone, yet its practice and procedure seem to permeate pop culture at an increasing rate. This column is about the intersection of law and pop culture in an attempt to separate the real from the ridiculous.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

School shootings by youths have risen frequently over the last quarter century, and the past five years reflect a substantially higher number of incidents, according to a recent article published by the American Academy of Pediatrics.

It seems challenging to find an avenue that might take us back to a simpler time, when the horrors of school shootings were the exception instead of the norm. Besides charging the shooters, a somewhat recent approach has been charging their parents as well.

Earlier in the month, Colin Gray, whose 14-year-old son is accused of shooting four people at a Georgia high school, was charged with involuntary manslaughter and second-degree murder. The government claims the deaths of two students and two teachers resulted from the son’s actions and the father allowing him to have the gun.

His son was charged with four counts of murder. As a lawyer and a writer, I always try to refrain from naming minors unless and until they are convicted.

Questions about the merits of charging a parent for a child’s crime, and whether that may be a valid tool for preemptively fighting school shootings, led me to Fox’s Accused, a gripping crime series set to start its second season in October. Each stand-alone installment is a fictional account created to craft a thought-provoking look at various forms of criminal liability.

The anthology series is based on a 2010 BBC show of the same name. I’ve been aware of the series for some time based on multiple reader recommendations. Nevertheless, this is my first opportunity to review an episode. The first installment immediately caught my attention, as it echoes Colin Gray’s situation.

‘Scott’s Story’

The episode was incredibly well-produced. The cinematography is top-notch, and the acting is very well done. If I came across Accused while scanning cable channels, I would have thought it was a drama series or a made-for-TV movie.

We quickly learn that soon-to-be-shooter Devin Harmon’s parents are aware their son threatened the life of another student due to bullying. His mother decides to pull him out of school instead of participating in assessments as part of his expulsion from school.

His father, Dr. Scott Harmon, a brain surgeon, seems more concerned with his son’s underlying issues, while his mother implores that her husband give the son some “space.”

The audience watches as the father views old family home movies. In one, his daughter asks why Devin never listens and foreshadows that “maybe he’s broken …” Other recorded instances show Devin keeping animals in boxes and hurting other children.

It becomes clear the father is aware his son has issues. He knows his boy lacks empathy, and he goes as far as to tell his wife that he thinks Devin is “dangerous.”

The episode alternates between the criminal process Harmon endures and the life experiences that led to the underlying knowledge upon which his criminal charges are partly based. Ultimately, the father finds himself stuck between the unconditional love of a parent and the fear that someone he cares so deeply for could cause so much pain to others.

The viewer is left asking, “When is it too early to intervene and to what extent?”

“Scott’s Story” was enjoyable from a dramatic and visual perspective. However, it was lacking in legal realism regarding the courtroom scenes, which all center on a preliminary hearing in the father’s criminal case. Either the production team didn’t seek the advice of an actual litigator, or they favored the emotional tug over the thrust of authenticity.

Nevertheless, that can’t detract from the cases the narrative mimics.

Other instances

Earlier this year, James and Jennifer Crumbley were both found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after their 15-year-old son, Ethan, was found guilty of killing four students in Michigan.

What separates the Crumbleys’ situation from the majority of school-shooter parents, though, is that they actually bought their son the pistol he used to murder the other students. Likewise, Colin Gray is alleged to have bought his son the AR-15-style rifle he allegedly used.

However, such a clear connection to the killing likely won’t be apparent in most parental liability cases. Indeed, Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, told Time magazine that it’s very rare for parents to be held accountable when their children have access to firearms and do harm. With that in mind, and in light of the recent charges against Gray, will we see an influx of charges levied against the parents of school shooters?

All this brings me back to my initial question: Is charging parents for the school shooting deaths caused by their children even a valid tool in preemptively fighting these horrors?

Sadly, I don’t think it is.

Let’s consider the context surrounding parental liability cases. The prosecution’s theory in these types of matters seems to be that the parent either knew or should have known their child was a threat to themselves or others and that the parent did or didn’t do something that assisted the shooter in ultimately carrying out their scheme.

The Associated Press reported that the prosecutor in Gray’s case said he’s “not trying to send a message … [he’s] just trying to use the tools in [his] arsenal to prosecute people for the crimes they commit.”

Whether true or not, one can see how charging parents for their children’s violence could be used as a tool to try and deter the ever-growing trend of school shootings. After all, if there was an easy alternative fix, we would have already discovered it. We haven’t, so maybe it’s necessary to try a new option, namely parental liability charges.

Some have argued that outlawing or further restricting assault rifles will lower the occurrence rate, but statistics show that handguns are most prevalent in mass shootings. Totally outlawing private possession of firearms isn’t a viable option, so society has to pursue some avenue that might protect our children.

I’m not the only person who believes that charging parents won’t stop the violence. Still, research shows that the handguns used in school shootings are frequently stolen from family members. Perhaps charges based on parental liability will force parents to take better care securing their firearms in the home.

But, as “Scott’s Story” reiterates, many parents are in denial regarding their children’s potential for deadly activity, and even those who are aware fail to take the proper steps to stop the danger.

At the end of the day, even though I can’t entirely agree with the notion that these types of cases will deter shootings, I don’t have a better option to suggest. So, if there is a valid legal theory to push that could potentially save more children, it’s worth a try.

---

Adam R. Banner is the founder and lead attorney of the Oklahoma Legal Group, a criminal defense law firm in Oklahoma City. His practice focuses solely on state and federal criminal defense. He represents the accused against allegations of sex crimes, violent crimes, drug crimes and white-collar crimes.

The study of law isn’t for everyone, yet its practice and procedure seem to permeate pop culture at an increasing rate. This column is about the intersection of law and pop culture in an attempt to separate the real from the ridiculous.

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.