Will AI Replace Legal Jobs in Des Moines? Here’s What to Do in 2025

Des Moines lawyers in 2025 must treat AI as an accelerating practice tool and a regulatory risk: the Iowa ABI's roundup highlights client questions about incorporating AI, internal uses, IP protection and data-privacy compliance - including the Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act that took effect Jan.

1, 2025 and is enforceable by the Iowa Attorney General (no private right of action) - while the Iowa State Bar notes that 82% of lawyers see AI applied to legal work and 51% support generative models, so ethical competence and oversight are immediate duties for firms; local signals - like the Iowa Technology Summit in Des Moines and Drake Law's AI offerings - show training and policy conversations are happening nearby, and practical reskilling (for example, Nucamp's 15‑week AI Essentials for Work bootcamp) is a clear way to close the gap between client demand and safe, accountable AI use.

Bootcamp	Length	Focus	Cost (early bird)	Registration
AI Essentials for Work	15 Weeks	Practical AI skills, prompts, workplace applications	$3,582	Register for Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp

AI can speed routine tasks in a Des Moines law office - drafting, clause extraction, and first-pass research - but it is not a substitute for legal judgment: a Stanford HAI study found leading legal AIs “hallucinate” (give incorrect or misgrounded answers) in roughly 1 out of 6 queries or more, with Lexis+ and Ask Practical Law showing >17% error rates and Westlaw's tool >34%, so every AI‑generated citation needs verification (Stanford HAI study on legal AI hallucinations in legal models).

At the same time, states are actively legislating AI use and disclosure - some laws even require an attorney affidavit about generative AI in drafting - and federal agencies are prosecuting deceptive AI claims, signaling enforcement risk if tools are used without oversight (NCSL summary of state artificial intelligence legislation (2024); FTC press release on crackdown on deceptive AI claims (2024)).

So what to do: treat AI as a high‑speed assistant - verify every proposition and citation, document vendor limits, and disclose usage where required to avoid ethical and regulatory pitfalls.

Tool	Observed Incorrect/Hallucination Rate
General-purpose chatbots	58%–82%
Lexis+ AI	>17%
Ask Practical Law AI	>17%
Westlaw AI-Assisted Research	>34%

Des Moines and the Iowa Capitol are already piloting practical, policy-focused AI: the Iowa House and the governor's office used an Iowa‑built platform called Legible this year to analyze documents, “track legislation,” and use a searchable “bill chat” that lets staff ask questions of bills, saving caucus teams a significant amount of time during a session that introduced more than 2,000 pieces of legislation - an operational shift that increases the need for local guardrails, training, and vendor transparency (Iowa Legislature used Legible AI during the 2025 legislative session).

Legible (formerly Upvote) is Des Moines‑based, has expanded to other states, counts roughly 170 users across clients, and recently closed a $1.2M seed round to scale policy‑intelligence features such as discovery, tracking, and automated summaries - data points that show AI is moving from experiment to everyday workflow for policy teams and nearby firms (Legible AI company profile and seed funding details).

Metric	Detail
Used by	Iowa House caucus staff and the governor's office
Session scale	More than 2,000 pieces of legislation (2025 session)
Local footprint	Des Moines HQ; ~170 users across several states
Funding	$1.2M seed round

“We haven't really found anything that would be considered a pure inaccuracy throughout the legislative session on our platform this year, which I think helped build a lot of trust. … we were pretty straightforward with everyone where it's like, ‘Hey, this is a tool at this point. It's not a replacement for your expertise or understanding.'”

Des Moines lawyers facing client demand and compliance checks should treat AI as a measurable productivity tool with clear limits: the Thomson Reuters Future of Professionals report finds firms with an intentional AI strategy are nearly 4x more likely to capture critical AI benefits and that AI can free roughly 4–5 hours per week per lawyer - about $19,000 in annual value - while surveys show 81% of strategy-led firms report ROI versus just 23% with no plan, so local firms that formalize policy and training can convert time savings into higher‑value client work or margin protection (Thomson Reuters Future of Professionals report on AI in the legal profession).

Adoption remains uneven - individual generative AI use sits near 31% while firm-level adoption is ~21% - and accuracy/ethics are real constraints (91% demand higher accuracy, 41% want 100% accuracy before no-review use), meaning oversight and vendor diligence are non‑negotiable (AffiniPay Legal Industry Report 2025 on AI adoption in law firms).

So what: firms that pair pilots with governance can reap time and revenue gains; firms that ignore strategy risk low ROI and regulatory exposure.

Metric	Value
ROI - firms with AI strategy	81%
ROI - firms without strategy	23%
Estimated time saved per lawyer	4–5 hours/week (~$19,000/year)
Individual generative AI use	31%
Firm-level generative AI use	21%

“This isn't a topic for your partner retreat in six months. This transformation is happening now.”

Des Moines lawyers must treat generative AI as both a productivity tool and a practice-area risk: with no binding Iowa bar opinion in place, ABA Formal Opinion 512 and a recent 50‑state survey are the closest practical standards to follow for duties like competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor to the tribunal, and charging reasonable fees (ABA Formal Opinion 512 guidance via Iowa Bar Blog; Justia 50‑State Survey on AI and Attorney Ethics).

Local deployments matter: the state's use of the Des Moines‑built platform Legible during the 2025 legislative session came with explicit staff guidance - prohibit sensitive-data inputs and require human review - which is a practical model for firms to replicate to limit disclosure and accuracy risk (Report on Iowa's use of Legible in the 2025 legislative session).

So what: document vendor data practices, get informed client consent before feeding confidential material to any third‑party model, and verify every AI‑generated citation or factual claim to reduce exposure to discipline, fee disputes, or evidentiary challenges.

Primary Risk	Local Guidance / Source
Ethical duties (competence, confidentiality, supervision, candor, fees)	ABA Formal Opinion 512 (Iowa Bar Blog)
State employee limits (no sensitive-data inputs; human review)	Iowa legislative deployment guidance (Legible report)
No formal Iowa bar rule yet; use national/state best practices	50‑state survey and ISBA resources

“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.”

Turn AI anxiety into a short, practical checklist: first, inventory where client data flows and use the IAPP Privacy Vendor Marketplace to vet vendors' data-handling, breach response, and training services before any pilot (IAPP Privacy Vendor Marketplace - vendor index for privacy and breach readiness); second, run low‑risk pilots inside an “AI sandbox” with clear human‑review rules and role-based prompts so drafts never leave firm control - InnovateUS's public‑sector courses show how to test tools safely and write use policies (InnovateUS Responsible AI workshops for the public sector); third, standardize client disclosures and vendor questions (does the model retain or use inputs for training?) and bake those requirements into engagement letters and RFPs, then codify task-level prompts and workflows from proven playbooks so associates don't guess when to escalate - Nucamp's practical guides list tools and prompt patterns tailored for Des Moines practice needs (Nucamp AI Essentials for Work syllabus).

Follow-through turns a risky experiment into a repeatable, auditable advantage for clients.

Step - Immediate Action - Resource:
• Vendor due diligence - Check data practices and breach support - IAPP Privacy Vendor Marketplace - vendor index for privacy and breach readiness
• Safe piloting - Use an AI sandbox + human review - InnovateUS Responsible AI workshops for the public sector
• Operationalize - Preset prompts, client disclosures, RFP clauses - Nucamp AI Essentials for Work syllabus

Aspiring lawyers in Des Moines should treat AI credentials as a hiring differentiator: list completed micro‑credentials and hands‑on projects (prompt design, model limits, vendor‑risk checks) on resumes, and highlight a short, verifiable course such as DMACC's online Intro to AI - an Intel‑based curriculum that can be finished in eight weeks for a Certificate of Completion - or UIU‑Des Moines's flexible AI micro‑credentials that run on 8‑week cycles; firms are actively hiring for roles that blend legal judgment with prompt engineering and governance, so pairing a brief technical credential with a project that shows prompt‑testing, citation verification, or a vendor‑due‑diligence checklist makes candidates immediately useful in practice and reduces onboarding friction for employers (local training lowers the “so what?” risk: faster time‑to‑value for firms).

For ecosystem context and to understand employer demand across Iowa, review the state's AI talent initiatives and business adoption trends.

Program	Format	Notable Detail / Source
DMACC Intro to AI course (DMACC Certificate of Completion)	Online	8 weeks or less; Intel‑based curriculum; Certificate of Completion
DMACC Introduction to ChatGPT course (prompt engineering & ethics)	Online	Covers ChatGPT, prompt engineering, legal & ethical implications
Upper Iowa University Des Moines AI micro‑credential (UIU‑Des Moines)	Online / 8‑week sessions	Short, stackable credential useful for resumes and transfer credit

“People say what is this? Why should I get excited as a business, established or a start‑up? AI is a once‑in‑a‑generation type of technology, providing a set of tools and assets that can pivot or really move you into this next phase of productivity,” says Allie Hopkins, area lead for Google's Iowa and Nebraska data centers.

Start the AI conversation at engagement: plainly state which tasks AI may assist with (document review, drafting, initial research), why it benefits the client (speed, lower routine costs), and what it cannot do (AI can err or “hallucinate,” so outputs will be verified by counsel).

Before any confidential material is entered into a third‑party model, explain your vendor vetting and data‑use limits and, when AI will be a “significant means” of representation, obtain documented informed consent - ideally a short engagement‑letter clause that records the client's acknowledgement and any fee or cost implications.

Describe safeguards in accessible language (mandatory attorney review, no upload of privileged files to public chatbots, encryption and vendor non‑retention where required), offer an opt‑out for privacy‑sensitive tasks, and record the discussion in the file so the firm can show compliance later.

Practical templates and step‑by‑step disclosure language are available for attorneys vetting tools and drafting client notices; see the Iowa Bar's vetting guidance and recent best practices on disclosing AI use to clients and building client communication protocols for AI use.

When to Tell Clients	How to Document	Key Safeguard
At engagement; before sharing client data	Engagement letter clause + written consent	Attorney review of all AI outputs
If AI affects billing or core strategy	Email record or amended engagement letter	Vendor data‑use and retention checks
When outsourcing to third‑party models	Signed consent + vendor DPA	No upload of privileged communications to public models

“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.”

Des Moines lawyers should actively monitor three tightly connected rule streams: state data-governance posted on the Iowa Department of Management's Data & Analytics portal, criminal-justice data access rules tied to the Justice Data Warehouse, and federal guidance on generative AI and open data - each affects what client information can be queried, published, or shared with vendors.

Check the Iowa Data Platform's publishing and federation rules before relying on state datasets for filings or analytics, verify JDW request procedures and the aggregated, cross-tabulated outputs used in criminal and juvenile matters, and watch Iowa Integrated Justice (IIJ) policies - IIJ performs nearly 1 million secure data transfers a month and connects prosecutors, defense counsel, the DOC, DHHS, and local law enforcement, so data-flow controls and retention rules matter for privilege and discovery.

Bookmark the Iowa Department of Management Data & Analytics portal for updates and vendor contacts, log rule changes alongside vendor DPAs, and adopt a simple surveillance calendar tied to legislative sessions and federal AI guidance so the firm can update client disclosures and engagement letters on a predictable schedule (Iowa Department of Management Data & Analytics portal; Nucamp AI Essentials for Work bootcamp syllabus).

Resource	What to Watch
Iowa Data Platform	Publishing rules, open-data federation, data‑asset definitions
Justice Data Warehouse (JDW)	Access procedures, aggregated outputs, request workflows for criminal/juvenile data
Iowa Integrated Justice (IIJ)	Agency access lists, retention/transfer controls (≈1M secure transfers/month)

“Reading unlocks a lifetime of potential, and the Department's new investment in statewide personalized reading tutoring further advances our shared commitment to strengthening early literacy instruction.” - McKenzie Snow, Iowa Department of Education Director

Start with a short, mandatory triage: map every client data flow (including any touchpoints with Iowa Integrated Justice, which performs nearly 1 million secure transfers each month) and lock down sources that could be shared with vendors; bookmark the Iowa Department of Management's Data & Analytics portal for publishing rules and Justice Data Warehouse access procedures so changes are visible to your compliance team (Iowa Department of Management Data & Analytics portal).

Second, treat health data and other sensitive records as high‑risk - follow HHS de‑identification approaches (Expert Determination or Safe Harbor) before sharing or analyzing health information so it is no longer treated as PHI under the Privacy Rule (HHS guidance on de-identification of PHI).

Third, run a deliberate AI sandbox pilot with clear human‑review gates, add a short engagement‑letter clause about AI use, and require vendor answers about input retention and training.

Finally, make training a firm priority: a practical option is a focused 15‑week course that teaches prompt design, vendor vetting, and workplace AI controls - train a small cohort first, then scale policies firm‑wide so the firm converts time savings into safer client outcomes (Nucamp AI Essentials for Work syllabus).

Program	Length	Cost (early bird)	Registration
AI Essentials for Work	15 Weeks	$3,582	Register for Nucamp AI Essentials for Work