Legal Cheek survey of over 2,000 junior lawyers finds AI tool investment racing ahead of basic hardware quality at City and major UK law firms
Exclusive research by Legal Cheek, based on its annual survey of over 2,000 trainees and junior lawyers, published on 2 November 2026, reveals a growing disconnect at UK and City law firms between investment in AI tools and the quality of everyday technology infrastructure. While firms are deploying tools including Harvey, Claude, ChatGPT, and Microsoft Copilot, trainees report that underlying hardware, such as laptops, and legacy case management systems are frequently slow, outdated, or unreliable. Representative responses from the survey include one trainee describing the firm as positioning itself as an 'AI law firm' while providing 'rudimentary' laptops that 'break often', and another noting that 'AI is only going to get you so far if you can't even open an email'. Some respondents praised firms that had successfully combined AI deployment with high-quality hardware and responsive IT support, describing that combination as rare. Several respondents noted partial AI access, with some staff given standard Copilot subscriptions and only a subset receiving more advanced licences. A number of firms were described as 'apprehensive about committing to one provider' and slow to adopt AI at all. The survey also captures variation in firm strategy: some have prioritised AI investment while deferring hardware upgrades; others have maintained reliable core infrastructure without moving quickly on AI; a small group appears to have achieved both.
Why this matters
The survey data points to a structural risk in law firm technology investment: concentrating spend on AI tooling without addressing foundational infrastructure creates a situation where the productivity gains from AI are constrained by the environment in which those tools are run. For firms competing on the basis of technology-led service delivery, this gap is a client-facing risk as much as an internal one. The trainee perspective is also commercially significant: junior lawyer dissatisfaction with technology is becoming a visible factor in recruitment and retention at a moment when firms are competing intensely for talent.
On the Ground
For law students and trainees, this survey is a practical due diligence prompt: questions about technology infrastructure, not just AI tools, are legitimate and increasingly expected at interview. For law firms, it signals demand for legal technology advisory work at two levels: technology procurement and vendor due diligence for AI and infrastructure contracts, and governance work around AI use policies and access tiering. No specific firms are named as advisers. A trainee with an interest in legal technology would, in practice, assist with technology licence review, AI governance policy drafting, and vendor due diligence questionnaires when a firm is selecting or upgrading its technology stack.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“How would you advise a law firm that has invested heavily in AI tools but is receiving complaints from trainees about poor underlying hardware and case management systems?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved