Editorial: almost two in three lawyers surveyed have had no AI training

This is an editorial by the AGENTE LEX newsroom. It expresses the portal's opinion.

In January 2026, the Spanish Legal Profession presented its White Paper on Artificial Intelligence and the Legal Profession, a document drawn up by the General Council of the Spanish Legal Profession together with the Valencia Bar Association, under an agreement with Red.es. The document itself warns that its opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the signing institutions.

The most revealing thing in the document is not its reflections, but the data from its survey.

What the data say

The White Paper gathers the responses of 1,841 professionals to a questionnaire carried out between 18 June and 15 July 2025. According to the document:

Among those who do not use AI, the most cited reason is insufficient training, ahead of doubts about reliability or security and unawareness of suitable tools.

These figures should be read with caution: they are the answers of those who completed the questionnaire, not a statistical sample of the whole profession. But the message is clear.

A profession using AI without having learned to use it

More than half of respondents already use some AI tool. Almost two in three have had no training. The conclusion seems clear: a significant share of respondents are using tools for which they have had no training.

And this happens just when the consequences of misuse have become concrete. The General Council's ethics circular 3/2026 regards filing briefs prepared with AI without verifying them as, in general, a serious infringement, and specifies that a technical failure of the tool does not remove responsibility, as we explain in the news item on the ethics circular on AI. The courts, for their part, have already sanctioned non-existent citations.

Demanding responsibility without offering training is asking the profession to learn through sanctions.

The good news

The same figure has a positive reading: 65% want to be trained. There is no need to convince the profession that it needs it; it is a matter of offering the training.

What we ask for

Of bar associations, to make AI training a priority, with a basic pathway accessible to all members, including those who practise alone and have no innovation department behind them. The Spanish Legal Profession's AI decalogue itself includes continuous training among its ten principles.

Of firms, not to allow anyone to use a tool without having received minimum training on it: what it does, what data can be entered and how the result is verified.

Of providers, to accompany their products with honest training on their limits, not only their capabilities.

Of every lawyer, to apply a simple rule from the circular: use AI only in matters you master. It is the best initial training, because it lets you detect the errors.

Training that includes knowing when not to use it

Good AI training for lawyers is not only technical. It must teach how to recognise the risks to professional secrecy, how to read results critically and, above all, how to know when not to use the tool.

We already argued that each firm should have its own usage policy in the editorial on the AI policy at the firm. No policy works if those who must apply it do not know how. More editorials in Opinion.