AI-generated complaints, grievances and data requests are flooding corporate legal departments, forcing in-house lawyers to sift through rising volumes of machine-written material to work out what actually needs a response, new research by global law firm Dentons has found. The central challenge, the study suggests, is no longer just reading the extra paperwork but determining which parts demand action.
Some legal teams are now using AI tools to help manage the surge in AI-authored submissions. The same technology that allows employees and customers to generate polished complaints and GDPR requests in seconds is, in turn, being deployed by companies to sort, assess and respond to the growing volume of incoming legal correspondence.
The Same Tools Are Creating and Managing Legal Work
The report, 'From AI Adoption to AI Advantage,' is based on interviews with senior in-house lawyers at Irish and international companies, including firms operating in the UK and US. Dentons said employee grievances, customer complaints and GDPR requests were now routinely being drafted with AI tools.
The research found that the central problem was not simply reading the additional material, but deciding which parts required action. Some legal teams had begun using AI to help manage the volume of submissions created by other AI systems.
This has created a two-sided technology shift. AI can reduce the time needed to produce a legal request, but it can also increase the number of requests that organisations must assess, respond to and record.
Corporate Legal Teams Keep AI on a Short Leash
Dentons said almost every interviewee described using AI for 'narrow, well-scoped repetitive tasks', rather than giving it unrestricted responsibility for legal work.
The report identified invoice review, contract checking, customer screening and other repetitive processes as examples of where AI was being used. It said AI was less often being used to replace core legal work such as research, drafting and judgement calls.
Carlo Salizzo, a technology partner at Dentons in Ireland and a co-author of the research, said the findings showed that in-house departments were 'not replacing employees with AI'. Instead, he said, they were using AI to help staff become more productive, including when dealing with AI-generated submissions.
Wayflyer Chief Legal and People Officer Deirdre McCarthy said AI could produce material that 'sometimes looks good, but may not always be good'. She said employees could spend significant time 'trading red lines' after putting material into an AI tool.
TechTimes has previously reported on how companies are applying AI to legal workflows, including AI-enabled legal research, contract review and compliance work.
Governance Turns Into a Technology Question
The report said many companies were centralising legal data while using several AI tools to work with it. It also identified changes in the relationship between in-house lawyers and external law firms, including interest in alternatives to hourly billing.
David Kirton, a Dentons technology partner and report co-author, said governance was no longer the exclusive responsibility of legal departments. 'Good governance requires the expertise of multi-disciplinary teams,' he said.
The UK's legal profession is also addressing the risks of AI-assisted work. The Law Society's practice note, published on 21 October 2026, covers confidentiality, privilege, data protection, cyber security, staff training and human supervision.
The Solicitors Regulation Authority has separately warned that solicitors remain responsible for work produced with AI assistance, including material containing inaccurate case law or other incorrect information. TechTimes has also covered AI monitoring and accountability concerns in legal services.
Practitioners Report a Growing Interpretation Burden
Discussion on legal subreddits echoed the report's distinction between polished output and useful output. An anonymous in-house counsel on r/LawyerTalk said staff requests were increasingly 'clearly AI drafted', but were often confusing, covered multiple contingencies and made assumptions that did not fit the organisation's industry.
A lawyer posting on r/LawFirm wrote: 'I don't need an AI-drafted reply email summarising everything I just did. Just need the yes or the no.' Another participant said AI could sound confident while giving incorrect legal analysis, missing important facts or turning a narrow issue into an unnecessary 'rabbit hole.'
These social-media accounts are anecdotal and do not establish how widespread the experiences are. They do, however, illustrate the practical issue identified in the Dentons research: AI-generated material can increase capacity while also increasing the amount of work that legal teams must sort, verify and answer.
Frequently Asked Questions
- How is AI being used in legal workflows?AI is used for narrow, repetitive tasks like invoice review and contract checking, but not for core legal work.
- What challenges do AI-generated legal documents present?They can increase the volume of work for legal teams, requiring sorting, verification, and response.
- What is the role of governance in AI-assisted legal work?Governance requires multi-disciplinary expertise and is not solely the responsibility of legal departments.
