The Complete Guide to Using AI as a Legal Professional in Des Moines in 2025

Des Moines legal professionals face a 2025 landscape where individual generative‑AI use is rising - 31% of surveyed lawyers report using AI at work while firm‑wide adoption lags around 21% - meaning local attorneys can win measurable time savings (65% of users report 1–5 hours saved weekly) by adopting vetted workflows, careful privilege controls, and tool integrations favored by firms; Iowa's own pilot of the Legible bill‑tracking tool shows state actors are already using AI to accelerate legislative review and highlights the need for guardrails on confidentiality and human review (see coverage of the Iowa Legislature AI pilot), and national analysis in the Legal Industry Report 2025 underscores that strategy, leadership, and training determine who benefits most from AI. For practical upskilling, consider an applied program such as Nucamp's Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp: learn prompts, tool selection, and workflows to preserve client privilege to learn prompts, tool selection, and workflows that preserve client privilege while trimming non‑billable time.

Program	Length	Early Bird Cost	Courses Included	Register
AI Essentials for Work	15 Weeks	$3,582	AI at Work: Foundations; Writing AI Prompts; Job Based Practical AI Skills	Register for Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp

“This isn't a topic for your partner retreat in six months. This transformation is happening now.” - Raghu Ramanathan, President of Legal Professionals, Thomson Reuters

AI tools available to Iowa lawyers today speed routine work and surface strategic insight: vLex's Vincent AI now offers multimodal analysis to transcribe depositions and extract key legal points, plus a refined “Build an Argument” workflow that returns direct‑citation links for faster research (vLex Vincent AI Winter 2025 release details); practical local guidance at the ISBA Annual Meeting highlights hands‑on sessions - MS Copilot demos with

25+ immediate uses

for existing software and panels on AI use in solo and small firms - showing how today's tools accelerate drafting, intake, document review, and judge/party profiling without wholesale IT overhauls (ISBA Annual Meeting AI & Technology track details).

The bottom line for Des Moines practitioners: deploy vetted AI workflows to shave billable-hour drudge work and redirect time to client strategy and courtroom preparation.

Capability	Example / Source
Multimodal transcription and extraction	vLex Vincent AI Winter 2025 release details
Argument construction with citations	vLex Vincent AI argument construction features
Workflow acceleration in existing tools (no new software)	ISBA Annual Meeting - MS Copilot session overview
Practical solo/small‑firm applications	ISBA Annual Meeting - AI Use in Solo and Small Firms summary

Choosing the “best” AI for Des Moines lawyers comes down to two practical questions: what task must be automated, and can the tool protect client confidentiality and jurisdictional accuracy.

For research‑heavy litigation teams that need verifiable citations and fast briefs, Thomson Reuters' CoCounsel is a professional‑grade option integrated with Westlaw and Practical Law and is already adopted by thousands of firms - its workflows can review 100 pages in about three minutes versus hours of human review - while Bloomberg Law's AI excels at pinpointing leading case law and drafting‑support language for argument construction; for transactional work, Spellbook's Word add‑in streamlines clause drafting and redlines inside the document workflow.

Vetting remains essential: local counsel should confirm the model's jurisdictional training, data‑use terms, and encryption before uploading privileged files (see the Iowa Bar's vetting guidance), then pilot a single workflow (research, contract redline, or intake) to measure time saved and error rates before firm‑wide rollout.

The right choice is therefore task‑focused, secure, and supervised - pick a tool that matches the job, not the marketing.

Tool	Best for
CoCounsel legal AI for Westlaw and Practical Law (Thomson Reuters)	Legal research & drafting (integrates with Westlaw/Practical Law; used by thousands of firms)
Bloomberg Law AI for legal research and citation discovery	Case‑law pinpointing and brief language - fast citation discovery
Spellbook AI for contract drafting and in‑Word redlining	Transactional drafting and in‑Word redlining for contract teams

“Legal generative AI is supposed to augment what a lawyer does. It's not going to do legal reasoning, not going to do case strategy. What it's supposed to do is do repeatable rote tasks much more quickly and efficiently.” - Zach Warren, Thomson Reuters Institute

Start small, measure quickly, and lock down guardrails: pick a single, high‑ROI, low‑complexity pilot - client intake, billing automation, or a first‑pass contract review - and run a time‑and‑accuracy baseline so improvements are measurable; building a basic client‑intake AI agent can be completed in roughly 8–12 weeks while keeping humans in the loop for legal decisions (Guide: How to build an AI agent for law firms).

Before any uploads, define goals, confirm the tool's jurisdictional training and data‑use terms, and require firm‑approved platforms for privileged material as the Iowa Bar recommends (Iowa Bar guidance: Vetting AI for attorneys).

Simultaneously, implement short, time‑bound governance steps from the Law Firm AI Policy Playbook - convene an AI governance board within 30 days, adopt a formal policy by 60 days, and complete training and monitoring by 90 days - to capture productivity gains while reducing risk in Des Moines practices (Step-by-step Law Firm AI Policy Playbook).

Timeline	Concrete Step	Pilot Options
0–30 days	Convene AI governance board; audit current tool use	Intake chatbot; baseline metrics
30–60 days	Approve pilot tools, formalize data‑use & confidentiality rules	Billing automation; contract redlines
60–90 days	Complete user training, verification procedures, and monitoring	Legal research assist with human verification

Turn AI from an experiment into repeatable, supervised work by building “agentic” workflows that plan, execute, and escalate to a human reviewer: start with high‑ROI, rule‑based tasks such as legal research, contract review/redlines, client intake, e‑discovery triage, or billing automation and measure baseline time and error rates before scaling; agentic workflows can handle multi‑step tasks (interpret issue, gather authoritative sources, synthesize citations, flag risks) and - when combined with human‑in‑the‑loop checks and firm‑approved data policies - deliver measurable gains (Thomson Reuters estimates nearly 240 hours saved per attorney - roughly $19,000 annually - when firms apply agentic automation at scale) (Thomson Reuters: Agentic workflows for legal professionals).

Vet every pilot against the Iowa Bar's vetting checklist - confirm jurisdictional training, encryption, and data‑use terms and require human verification for filings and pleadings (Iowa Bar: Vetting AI for Attorneys guidance).

For contract teams, embed a Word‑based review workflow (example: Gavel Exec/Gavel) that returns clause redlines and firm‑specific playbook flags so lawyers review only exceptions; pilot one workflow for 8–12 weeks, confirm accuracy, lock the vendor SLA, and then expand modularly to preserve privilege while reclaiming associate hours for higher‑value work (Gavel Exec: AI contract review tools for lawyers).

Workflow	Typical steps	Tool example & benefit
Legal research	Interpret issue → query databases → synthesize cases with citations	CoCounsel / Westlaw integration - faster, citation‑linked research (Thomson Reuters)
Contract review	Bulk scan → clause benchmarking → flag deviations → produce redlines	Gavel Exec - Word integration, firm playbooks, faster redlines
Client intake & billing	Automated intake → prioritize leads → generate engagement/billing entries	Clio Duo / practice‑management integrations - reduces admin time, improves revenue capture

“Firms that delay adoption risk falling behind and will be undercut by firms streamlining operations with AI.” - Niki Black, Principal Legal Insight Strategist, AffiniPay

Des Moines lawyers must treat AI use as an extension of existing professional duties: the ABA's Formal Opinion 512 (summarized by the Iowa Bar) frames key obligations - competent representation, protecting client information (Model Rule 1.6), clear client communication, supervising staff and vendors, candor to the tribunal, and charging reasonable fees - while national surveys catalog state guidance on consent, verification, and billing practices; practical steps for local firms include vetting vendor terms before uploading privileged files, obtaining informed client consent for self‑learning tools when confidentiality is at risk, documenting human verification of AI outputs before court filings, and adopting written firm policies and training so supervisors can meet their oversight duties.

Ignore these steps at real risk: the Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board enforces the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct and can impose outcomes ranging from private admonition to public reprimand or suspension of license if ethical rules are violated.

One concrete mnemonic: “Verify, Disclose, Supervise” - verify AI outputs, disclose use when it affects client decisions, and supervise staff and vendors so human judgment stays front and center; see the Iowa Bar's ABA summary for local guidance and the 50‑state survey for comparative rules.

Ethical Duty	Concrete Step for Des Moines Firms
Competence	Train lawyers on tool limits and verify AI research/citations
Confidentiality	Review vendor data‑use and encryption before uploading client data
Communication	Disclose AI use in engagement letters when it affects decisions
Supervision	Adopt firm AI policies and monitor staff/vendor use
Candor & Fees	Verify courtroom materials and adjust billing if AI saves time

“To ensure clients are protected, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.”

Risk management for Des Moines firms should start with governance: create a clear AI inventory, designate oversight (a Chief AI Officer or governance board), and adopt a risk rubric for intake, testing, and escalation - practices the GSA recommends in its AI governance playbook to measure safety, accountability, and vendor compliance (GSA AI guidance and governance playbook).

Vendor vetting must go beyond marketing - require written SLAs on data use and deletion, confirm encryption and jurisdictional model training, and prohibit uploading non‑public client data to uncontracted services, echoing the University of Iowa's warning that many tools lack institutional contracts and should only be used with public‑level data (University of Iowa secure and ethical AI guidelines).

Also track local and state signals: the Technology Association of Iowa's new AI policy subcommittee and the slow but active slate of Iowa AI bills mean regulatory expectations could shift quickly, and local infrastructure impacts - Microsoft's data center once drew about 6% of West Des Moines' monthly water supply before a zero‑water cooling commitment - show vendors' operational footprints can create client and community risk that belongs in vendor diligence (Midwest Newsroom coverage of Midwest cities AI impacts).

The practical takeaway: require contract terms that protect privilege, pilot one workflow under governance, and include community‑impact and resource‑use checks in every vendor scorecard so counsel can document reasoned, ethical choices under evolving Iowa rules.

Risk Action	Quick Description
AI Governance Board	Designate oversight, inventory tools, adopt risk rubric (GSA model)
Vendor Vetting Checklist	Require SLAs on data use/deletion, encryption, jurisdictional training; ban uncontracted uploads (UIowa caution)
Policy & Community Watch	Monitor TAI subcommittee and pending Iowa bills; assess vendor operational impacts (water/energy)

“We felt like we needed to have something in place about what our abilities were as a water utility.” - Christina Murphy, West Des Moines Water Works

Short answer: no - AI will alter how Des Moines lawyers work, but it will not replace them by 2025; generative tools can shave hours from routine research, intake, and first‑draft drafting, yet the human tasks that matter - ethical judgment, courtroom advocacy, client counseling, and navigating rural access gaps - remain irreplaceable.

Local data underline the point: firms are still hiring (44% report recruitment plans) even as Iowa loses ground in rural coverage, with dozens of counties now classified as “legal deserts,” concentrating private practice in Polk County and stressing indigent defense systems that rely on a mix of 176 state public defenders and 492 contract attorneys statewide; those workforce pressures make augmentation, not replacement, the likely outcome for the near term.

The practical implication: adopt supervised, secure AI workflows to reclaim associate hours for high‑value legal work while investing in training and recruitment to fill real shortages rather than expect automation to substitute for licensed counsel (see ISBA hiring trends and the statewide rural‑lawyer analysis for context).

Metric	Value / Source
Firms planning to hire	ISBA Economic Survey: 44% of firms report hiring plans
Legal deserts in Iowa	Statewide analysis: 56 Iowa counties classified as legal deserts
Indigent defense staffing	Indigent defense staffing levels: 176 state public defenders and 492 contract attorneys statewide

“Legal generative AI is supposed to augment what a lawyer does. It's not going to do legal reasoning, not going to do case strategy. What it's supposed to do is do repeatable rote tasks much more quickly and efficiently.” - Zach Warren, Thomson Reuters Institute

Des Moines attorneys and firms seeking practical upskilling now have a local, lawyer‑focused pathway: Drake Law School launched an Artificial Intelligence Law Certificate in 2025 that combines interdisciplinary course work with experiential training so graduates can move directly into AI‑adjacent roles such as policy review, privacy and cybersecurity counseling, and contract drafting support; the program requires a minimum of 18 credits (including core AI & policy classes and electives) and allows up to 6 experiential credits for clinics, contract drafting, or negotiation practice, giving firms a verifiable signal that entry‑level hires understand both AI governance and hands‑on workflows - see the Drake Law School Artificial Intelligence Law Certificate for full curriculum details and the Law360 announcement of the certificate launch for context (Drake Law School AI Law Certificate - curriculum and details, Law360 coverage: Drake University launches AI law certificate program); firms can also review Drake's broader certificate offerings to identify cross‑disciplinary hires with IP or compliance backgrounds who already train alongside AI coursework (Drake Law certificate programs overview - cross-disciplinary certificates).

The practical takeaway: hiring or partnering with Drake certificate students gives Des Moines firms an affordable, local pipeline of lawyers who have completed structured AI coursework plus clinic hours - useful for staffed pilots where firms want measurable competence on day one.

Program	Minimum Credits	Max Experiential Credits	Program Director
Artificial Intelligence Law Certificate (Drake Law)	18	6	Professor Sayoko Blodgett‑Ford

Practical next steps for Des Moines lawyers: pick one high‑value pilot (intake chatbot, contract redline, or research assist), convene an AI governance board within 30 days, and run a supervised 8–12 week pilot with baseline time‑and‑accuracy metrics so you can measure gains (local users commonly reclaim 1–5 hours/week); vet vendors before any upload using the Iowa Bar's checklist - confirm jurisdictional training, encryption, and data‑use terms - and require documented human verification and client disclosure where confidentiality or legal judgment is implicated (Iowa Bar vetting AI guidance for attorneys).

Pair governance with targeted training so supervising lawyers meet ABA‑aligned duties; for practical, workplace‑focused upskilling consider an applied program such as Nucamp's Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp to master prompts, tool selection, and workflows that preserve privilege while boosting billable capacity.

Start small, document results, and expand only after the pilot proves accuracy, client protections, and measurable time savings - this approach turns AI from a compliance headache into a controlled productivity engine for Des Moines firms.

Program	Length	Early Bird Cost	Register
AI Essentials for Work	15 Weeks	$3,582	Register for Nucamp AI Essentials for Work (15 Weeks)

“To ensure clients are protected, lawyers using generative artificial intelligence tools must fully consider their applicable ethical obligations, including their duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients, to supervise their employees and agents, to advance only meritorious claims and contentions, to ensure candor toward the tribunal, and to charge reasonable fees.”