Gilbert + Tobin, a prominent Australian corporate law firm, is redefining the practice of law through the strategic integration of artificial intelligence. The firm has embraced AI, including tools like ChatGPT Enterprise, ChatGPT Work, and Codex, to move beyond individual assistance towards defined, multi-step agentic workflows, while maintaining human oversight and accountability for all legal work.
Sam Nickless, Partner and Chief Executive Officer at Gilbert + Tobin, detailed the firm’s three primary objectives for AI adoption: enhancing client services, improving the work environment for its legal professionals, and solidifying its market leadership. Contrary to expectations of cost reduction or workforce reduction, Nickless highlighted that the true value of AI has been in freeing up legal staff to concentrate on more human-centric aspects of their roles, such as client engagement, team coaching, and mentoring future industry leaders. This approach emphasizes AI as an augmentation tool rather than a replacement.
Phased AI Adoption Strategy
Gilbert + Tobin’s AI journey has been structured in three distinct phases: experimentation, personal productivity, and organizational productivity. The initial phase encouraged employees to explore AI tools, with strict guidelines against entering client or confidential data. This safe, constrained environment allowed for initial learning and identification of potential value. The subsequent phase involved providing secure access to powerful AI technologies, including ChatGPT Enterprise, in a controlled setting, which then expanded to broader organizational use.
The firm has reported significant user engagement, with 87% of enabled ChatGPT users actively using the tool, a rate more than double the firm’s typical adoption for other technologies. This high adoption rate is attributed to leadership actively using AI themselves, providing job-specific examples, and ensuring clear human responsibility for the final work product. Gilbert + Tobin has also emphasized Australian data residency, contractual protections, role-based access, and administrative controls to build confidence in scaling the use of OpenAI tools.
Transforming Legal Operations with AI
Beyond internal use, Gilbert + Tobin’s dedicated G+T Innovate team, comprising technologists, lawyers, and data scientists, works with clients to develop custom technology tools, including AI-driven solutions, to enhance speed and deliver deep commercial insights. The firm has been at the forefront of adopting AI for transactional work, bringing speed, quality, and certainty to deals. They also leverage AI and legal informatics for large-scale document review in disputes, investigations, and regulatory matters.
The firm’s commitment to innovation extends to empowering in-house legal teams through legal operations consulting, helping them improve efficiency and capability across processes and technology. Gilbert + Tobin also offers expert legal guidance and strategies for AI development and commercialization, advising clients on AI governance, regulatory compliance, and the protection of intellectual property, particularly in the context of generative AI. This includes advising on AI Safety Standards and navigating the evolving AI regulatory landscape in Australia.
Human Judgment Remains Central
Despite the advanced integration of AI, Gilbert + Tobin maintains that human judgment remains paramount. AI is viewed as a tool that amplifies lawyers’ capabilities, accelerating legal research and work processes without bypassing professional expertise. Lawyers are central to interrogating AI outputs, applying their judgment, and ensuring the soundness of legal advice. This distinction is critical in managing the risks associated with over-reliance on AI.
The firm’s approach is grounded in practical application, strong governance, and the protection of confidential information. This includes developing AI policies and ensuring that directors’ and officers’ duties extend to AI oversight. Gilbert + Tobin emphasizes that accountability for AI-driven outcomes rests with the organization, its directors, or officers, not the machine itself, highlighting that “My robot did it” is not a valid legal defense. Existing legal frameworks, rather than AI-specific legislation, are expected to govern AI-related disputes in Australia.
The Chenab Times News Desk
