Buying technology is relatively easy. Understanding what you want that technology to accomplish and changing your processes accordingly is much harder. For law firms, that distinction may determine whether legal AI software adoption is genuinely transformative or simply another monthly software subscription.
Which AI Tool Should Your Firm Actually Use?
Artificial intelligence has moved remarkably quickly from novelty to expectation within the legal profession. Law firms experiment with AI tools for legal research, document review, drafting, summarization, transcription, practice management, and an expanding list of administrative tasks.
As a result, one question we hear increasingly often is: Which AI tool should our firm use? It sounds like the right question, but it often isn’t.
Start With the Problem, Not the AI Software
Law firms have a long history of solving tech problems by buying more tech. Sometimes that works. Often, firms buy sophisticated software only to discover a year later that relatively few people use it. AI makes that temptation even stronger because seemingly every legal technology product now includes some form of artificial intelligence.
Before evaluating another AI platform, your firm should first identify the problem you aim to solve. Are attorneys spending too much time summarizing lengthy documents? Is intake inefficient? Does administrative work take up too much attorney time? Is the firm trying to improve legal research, document production or knowledge management?
Once you clearly define the problem, evaluating technology becomes much easier. Starting with the product and then searching for ways to use it reverses that process.
Faster Isn’t Necessarily Better: Why Workflows Matter Most in Legal AI Software Adoption
AI tends to amplify what already exists. Good processes can become better. Inefficient processes can become faster versions of the same inefficiency. That’s an important lesson for law firms.
Imagine a firm where attorneys save documents inconsistently, client intake procedures vary depending on who answers the phone, or no one has clearly defined how to open and close matters. Adding AI doesn’t necessarily fix any of those problems. In some cases, automation may allow the firm to make the same mistakes more efficiently.
This is why firms should examine the underlying workflow before automating it. Ask the people performing the work where bottlenecks occur. Identify unnecessary steps. Determine which tasks require an attorney’s judgment and which do not. Then decide whether AI can improve the redesigned process. Sometimes the best AI implementation may begin without AI at all.
Decide Where Humans Still Matter
Another question firms should consider as AI becomes more capable is: What work should remain human? AI can summarize depositions, produce first drafts, analyze large volumes of information, and help identify patterns in documents. These capabilities can save attorneys enormous amounts of time, but efficiency shouldn’t replace judgment.
Attorneys still need to verify AI-generated work, understand the underlying facts and law, protect client confidentiality, and decide whether the output makes sense in the context of the representation. You want to establish clear boundaries that define where AI assistance ends and human review begins.
Those boundaries should also be reflected in the firm’s AI policy and in employee training. Attorneys and staff need to know which tools are approved, what information they may enter, and when AI-generated material requires review.
Ask What Happens to the Time You Save
Perhaps the most interesting question raised by greater AI efficiency isn’t technological. If AI allows an attorney to complete a task in two hours instead of eight, what happens to the other six hours?
For firms operating under the billable-hour model, that question has obvious economic implications. But it also presents an opportunity. Time saved on routine work can be redirected toward activities clients value more: strategic advice, risk analysis, communication, understanding the client’s business, and anticipating problems before they become legal matters.
That may ultimately be where AI creates the greatest competitive advantage for law firms. It can free attorneys from routine work, letting them spend more time providing the judgment and counsel that technology cannot easily replace.
AI Readiness Is a Management Issue
Guiding Principles for Successful Legal AI Software Adoption
Law firms don’t need to adopt every new AI tool, nor should they avoid AI while waiting for the technology to mature. The better approach is deliberate adoption:
- Pick a real problem.
- Understand the existing workflow.
- Determine whether AI can improve it.
- Establish appropriate safeguards.
- Train the people who will use the technology.
- Then measure whether it has made things better.
If it doesn’t, don’t be afraid to change course. The law firms that benefit most from AI may not be the ones with the largest collection of AI products. They may be the ones who understand what they are trying to accomplish before they start buying the tools.
Before asking which AI tool your firm should adopt next, ask a more fundamental question: What problem are we trying to solve?
Michael C. Maschke is President and Chief Executive Officer of Sensei Enterprises, Inc. He is an EnCase Certified Examiner (EnCE), Certified Computer Examiner (CCE #744), AccessData Certified Examiner (ACE), Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) and a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP). He is a frequent speaker on IT, cybersecurity and digital forensics, and he has co-authored 14 books published by the American Bar Association. mmaschke@senseient.com.
Sharon D. Nelson is the co-founder of and a consultant to Sensei Enterprises. She is a past president of the Virginia State Bar, the Fairfax Bar Association and the Fairfax Law Foundation. She is a co-author of 18 books published by the ABA. snelson@senseient.com
John W. Simek is the co-founder of and a consultant to Sensei Enterprises. He holds multiple technical certifications and is a nationally known digital forensics expert. He is a co-author of 18 books published by the American Bar Association. jsimek@senseient.com
More About Lawyers and AI on Attorney at Work
- 5 Essential Questions Every Lawyer Should Ask Before Using AI Tools
- Should You Be ‘Vibe Lawyering’ with Generative AI? (Listen)
- From Fear to Functionality: How Lawyers Can Ethically Integrate AI into Their Practice
- Richard Susskind on AI for Lawyers: A Review of ‘How to Think About AI’ (Listen)
Image © iStockPhoto.com.
Sign up for Attorney at Work’s daily practice tips newsletter here and subscribe to our podcast, Attorney at Work Today.
Illustration ©iStockPhoto.com
