Catalonia's professional associations launch an inter-collegiate study on the real impact of AI on members' work

The Intercollegiate Association of Professional Associations of Catalonia, through its Intercollegiate Economic Analysis Centre and with the collaboration of Abogacía Joven, has launched an inter-collegiate study on the impact of artificial intelligence on professional work, the Barcelona Bar Association (ICAB) has announced. The declared goal is to learn first-hand, from the experience of registered members themselves, the real incidence of new AI tools on their tasks and functions, as well as their perceptions of the technological shift.

The study is built around a survey addressed to members of the participating professional associations, so the results will rest on answers from those affected rather than on external estimates. No results have been published yet: what opens now is the data-collection phase.

Why this study arrives at the right time

Until now, measuring AI's impact on the Spanish legal profession has relied mainly on general-scope reports or vendor research, different methodologies that explain widely divergent figures. The White Paper on AI of the General Council of Spanish Lawyers once handled usage percentages that have already been overtaken by the speed of adoption, and recent sector reports agree on one commonsense conclusion: use is spreading faster than governance.

An inter-collegiate study with its own methodology brings something different: a territorial, profession-by-profession snapshot built with the members themselves, which can underpin concrete training and deontological policies. Because the initiative comes from an association covering several professions, not only lawyers, it will also allow comparison of how technological change affects jurists, economists, engineers or architects differently.

What a firm gains by taking part

For the average firm, the temptation is to ignore these surveys. There are three practical reasons not to. First, professional training policies are designed on this data: if younger members respond little, conclusions will reflect those who already held a formed opinion. Second, comparing your own experience with the aggregated sector is a cheap form of benchmarking: knowing whether your usage level sits above or below comparable peers informs investment decisions. Third, results from this kind of study usually feed guides and recommendations, like the CCBE guide on generative AI for lawyers at European level.

What to expect from the questionnaire

Studies of this kind usually ask about three blocks: the tools already in use and the tasks they cover (drafting, research, review, translation), the controls the firm applies before sending AI-assisted work to clients or courts, and the perceived risks, from confidentiality to job impact. Answering with the firm's real situation, not the aspirational one, is what makes the aggregated picture useful for everyone. The participating professional associations will distribute the survey through their usual member channels in the coming weeks.

The context: the profession regulates use before measuring it

The current paradox is that regulation of use runs ahead of measurement. Spanish judges already have a CGPJ instruction on artificial intelligence setting the limits of its use in the judicial function, and bar-level deontology has begun to fix verification duties, such as the deontological circular on AI and the verification of filings, alongside the first court sanctions over misuse of AI.

In that context, measuring with data what professionals actually do, which tasks have changed and which risks they perceive is the missing piece for usage rules to rest on evidence rather than intuition. The results, once published, will be followed in this Legal AI section.