AI and the Organization of Work: Experimental Evidence from Law Firms in an LMIC

Last registered on September 22, 2026

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
AI and the Organization of Work: Experimental Evidence from Law Firms in an LMIC
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0019459
Initial registration date
September 16, 2026

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
September 22, 2026, 6:41 AM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.

Locations

There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
New York University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
University of Cologne

Additional Trial Information

Status
In development
Start date
2026-11-15
End date
2027-11-15
Secondary IDs
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Abstract
Generative AI can substantially raise individual productivity, but whether these gains translate into higher firm performance depends on how AI reshapes work within organizations. This project studies generative AI as an organizational technology through a randomized rollout of a retrieval-grounded legal-AI tool specialized to the country-specific case law, across ~300 small-to-medium-sized law firms. Firms are randomized to delayed access, partial access for approximately half of their lawyers stratified by seniority, or firm-wide access. The design identifies direct effects on users, spillovers onto coworkers who do not receive the tool, and firm-level effects of adoption within the same organizations. It also tests whether effects differ between junior and senior lawyers. To our knowledge, we provide the first causal design that separately identifies direct effects, coworker spillovers, and firm-level output within the same organizations.

The study addresses a central tension in AI adoption within firms: AI may free senior workers from routine tasks and generate organizational gains, but imperfect AI output may instead create verification burdens that attenuate productivity gains. These forces have important implications for how AI affects the distribution of work and demand for junior professionals. If specialized AI allows small firms to overcome constraints in scarce professional expertise, it could lower the cost and expand the availability of these services. If effective adoption instead depends on existing organizational capacity and senior expertise, technology could reinforce productivity differences across firms. The results will provide evidence on whether AI can help small professional-services firms in developing countries overcome constraints to productivity and scale, and on how the gains from adoption are distributed across firms and workers.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Jain, Preksha and Tillmann Spindeldreier. 2026. "AI and the Organization of Work: Experimental Evidence from Law Firms in an LMIC." AEA RCT Registry. September 22. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.19459-1.0
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
Access to a specialized legal-AI product to small-to-medium sized law firms
Intervention Start Date
2027-03-01
Intervention End Date
2027-09-01

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Primary outcomes are value-weighted task output per lawyer-month, task and task-time composition (routine vs. non-routine) at the lawyer level, and billed value per baseline lawyer-month at the firm level.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary firm outcomes include total billed value, billed hours, active matters, and employment.
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Randomized rollout of a specialized legal-AI product to small-to-medium sized law firms, stratified by size, and allocated in equal proportions to the following three arms:
1. Delayed-access control (DA): Firms receive no study-provided access during the intervention period and become eligible for access after endline.
2. Partial access (PA): Approximately 50 percent of lawyers in these firms receive access. Assignment is randomized within each firm and seniority stratum, so treated and untreated junior and senior lawyers are observed in the same organization.
3. Full access (FA): All lawyers within these firms receive access.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
Randomization done in office by a computer
Randomization Unit
Firm-level randomization at the first level and then at the lawyer level just for PA firms
Was the treatment clustered?
Yes

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
300 firms
Sample size: planned number of observations
300
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
100 firms Delayed Access control, 100 firms Full Access, 100 firms Partial Access
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number