How are MD attorneys using AI in practices?

Artificial intelligence is becoming a regular part of many lawyers’ workflows, helping attorneys summarize documents, brainstorm litigation strategy, monitor legal developments and overcome writer’s block.

Sixty-nine percent of U.S. legal professionals now use general-purpose AI tools for work, more than double the 31% who reported doing so a year earlier, according to the 2026 Legal Industry Report from 8am, a business platform for lawyers and other client-focused professionals. Cited by the American Bar Association, the survey included more than 1,300 legal professionals nationwide.

AI use is particularly prevalent among younger lawyers. Forty-eight percent of 2022 graduates of ABA-accredited law schools said AI has become an “essential” part of their daily work, according to a July 2026 survey by the National Association for Law Placement and the NALP Foundation. Another 30% said they have access to AI at work but use it infrequently, while 22% said they don’t use AI at work. That survey included 1,302 law school graduates.

Legal research was the most common use, cited by 57% of AI users in the NALP survey, followed by compiling and synthesizing information at 55%. Forty percent reported using AI to draft legal documents.

RELATED: AI hasn’t triggered flood of legal malpractice claims, but insurers watching

Yet despite the rapid adoption of generative AI, Maryland attorneys interviewed by The Daily Record said they still view the technology as an assistant rather than a substitute for legal judgment.

Across interviews with practitioners from firms of varying sizes, one message emerged consistently: AI can save time, but attorneys — not algorithms — remain responsible for the final work product.

Commonly used tools

Among the platforms cited most frequently were Claude and ChatGPT, with attorneys also mentioning Perplexity, as well as AI capabilities built into Lexis and Bloomberg Tax.

Baltimore employment lawyer Kathleen Cahill said she routinely compares answers from Claude, ChatGPT and Perplexity rather than relying on a single platform.

“I often run my projects or queries through all three,” Cahill said. “Then by scrutiny and selection, I end up with a compilation.”

RELATED: AI creates gray area for MD law schools, students

That process takes longer than accepting a single AI-generated answer, she said, but produces better results while forcing her to remain actively engaged.

“I never use AI passively,” she said. “It is only a tool. I do not view it as an enhancement of my brain power or my experience accumulated over decades of practice.”

But if forced to choose only one platform, Cahill said she would keep Claude.

Brainstorming and research

Attorneys described AI as particularly valuable for tasks that benefit from speed and creativity rather than absolute precision.

Cahill uses AI for legal research, document review, editing, summarization and litigation strategy. Before one recent trial, she used AI to create what she described as a “synthetic focus group” to help test arguments.

Rockville litigator John Garza said he frequently uses AI to research statutes and case law.

“I find it to be helpful to get basic information,” Garza said.

RELATED: 5 ways malpractice insurers say law firms can reduce AI risk

Administrative work

Glen Frost, a founding partner with Maryland’s Frost Law, said the tax, business, litigation and estate law firm is using Claude Enterprise along with AI tools incorporated into Lexis and Bloomberg Tax.

According to Frost, AI has improved efficiency across administrative functions while helping attorneys monitor new legislation, agency guidance and court decisions.

“It helps us drill down with overviews of complex issues and current events,” Frost said.

Frost Law has established an internal Legal Innovation Committee that regularly evaluates emerging AI technologies and identifies opportunities to improve firm operations.

The firm also provides ongoing AI training for both attorneys and administrative staff.

Trust — but verify

Despite growing enthusiasm, every attorney interviewed emphasized that AI-generated work requires careful human review.

And because that verification duplicates much of the work, costs can outweigh the time savings. Garza said that as a semiretired attorney, the costs associated with using AI are a problem.

But, Cahill said, lawyers have an ethical obligation to understand AI rather than simply use it.

“It is an unprecedented opportunity, but it also creates a tremendous responsibility,” she said. Attorneys should study AI continuously to ensure they use it “ethically, strategically and thoughtfully.”

Garza warned that AI “misses things” and is still not as good as asking a lawyer who is an expert in the field.

For example, complex medical records can easily be misinterpreted. As a result, lawyers still must independently review the records to verify the AI’s conclusions, the sources said.

“As Ronald Reagan used to say, you still need to ‘trust but verify,'” Frost said.