Sometimes during a period of intense change, we spend so much time looking at how far there is to go, that we forget to look at how far we have come. That struck me as the case during a law firm dinner hosted by Legal IT Insider in partnership with Actionstep, at which I was privileged to be joined by legal leaders from law firms and in-house legal teams of all different sizes. We discussed the challenges, opportunities, and common ground between us: the latter of which being where, perhaps, the biggest learning opportunities lie.
The challenges are great. The fear of missing out is real. The fear of screwing up is greater. The ROI is difficult to calculate. It feels to all organisations that they are not as far ahead as they ought to be. But the progress, once we have got all of that out of the way, is worth noting.
The Challenges
It would be foolish to pretend that any conversation among legal organisations about GenAI doesn’t still – and maybe always will – start off with and revolve around the challenges, with good reason.
There are lots of them, for starters. One challenge, right off the bat, is how you make sense of – and overcome – that fear of missing out that permeates the industry and drives bad behaviours such as rushing into decisions around purchasing new technology.
Alex Herrity, director of legal operations at sporting giant adidas, looking on with a client perspective, said: “GenAI is everywhere and dominates the discourse – unfortunately most is marketing and content creation on LinkedIn with little substance for the typical lawyer to use it meaningfully – those looking for answers and insights struggle to find them, but the FOMO drives them on.”
The fear is real, as they say, and Jas Bassi, the former head of solution delivery of Gateley said: “There are a lot of firms out there getting FOMO when it comes to AI, due to other firms with clever marketing of their perceived AI capability,” adding, “I don’t believe that we’re all that far apart, but we need to be clear on the objectives and business case when investing in AI solutions in order to get expected value.”
Taking the time to exchange ideas with peers from different organisations is key. Reflecting on the conversation over dinner, Thomas Prince, a partner and head of commercial at CG Professional, echoed: “I think there is certainly a perception that the bigger firms are doing a lot in this space (with smaller firms playing catch up) and it was interesting and somewhat reassuring to hear that this is not necessarily the case.”
Tracey Longbottom, senior sales executive at Actionstep said: “It’s obvious that genAI has the potential to change the legal landscape at pace we haven’t seen before. What was so interesting to me was that most law firms aren’t quite sure ‘how’ this will be achieved yet. With this in mind, it’s vital lawyers are given appropriate advice and training and that this is underpinned by a clear AI policy.”
The risk of mistakes and need for training
Cases of lawyers or law firms being criticised or fined for using hallucinated case law in court filings have increased over the past year. That might seem counterintuitive, but the simple fact is that more people are using GenAI – particularly ChatGPT – and, perhaps, it’s also just testament to the fact that you can never, ever get sloppy.
Michael Clavell-Bate, head of the Manchester office at offshore firm Asserson, observed that GenAI is no replacement at the moment for proper legal research and that firms must “be absolutely clear with junior training on AI use, making sure that the use of AI is indicated in any research and that juniors understand the ramifications of AI done badly.” Clavell-Bate points out that recent studies show younger people who grew up with technology are more likely to fully trust it and be less cautious, ergo juniors may have a blind spot on how effective AI is.
Prince agrees but adds: “There is also a lot for more senior lawyers to learn with regards to supporting the next generation of legal talent. For me, this requires recognition that these are very unlikely to be forged in the same environment as more senior personnel. How to support and develop this generation and recognise the nuances in their roles and expertise will likely require retraining at the top as well as, potentially, bringing specialist expertise in-house to fully unlock the potential benefits of the digital native legal professionals.”
It is interesting to note that in the rash of court cases involving hallucinated cases in May, it was senior lawyers who were responsible.
Ellis Parry, director at Data Privacy Compliance Solutions, who was previously data ethics advisor at the Information Commissioners Office and before that global lead for data privacy at BP, points out that a written policy about how the firm expects fee earners to behave when using AI is imperative. “So is ongoing monitoring of the firm’s actual use to gauge compliance with the policy,” he says, adding, “monitoring can also help prove return on investment.”
Clarity on why you’re investing in technology is important. There is often a lag between invention and widespread use of tech and Karen Bexley, CEO of Bexley Beaumont, says: “With a number of different tech offerings already on the market the focus needs to be how and why it adds value and the benefit to the client and/or lawyer service and experience. Cost, regulatory concerns, the complex nature of AI and changing a culture and current ways of working all mean it won’t happen overnight.”
This is indeed a long-term commitment but firms need to be asking questions now about their own infrastructure and whether they are now set up to absorb the changes that are racing down the track. Herrity says: “ROI is difficult to calculate on most of the current tools – often features look impressive and undoubtedly there are gains to be made by using certain tools – but training, change management, adoption, overall workflow changes require way more effort than many have the time, resources, stomach to do.”
The general consensus around the table over dinner was that we all need to be more outcome driven rather than dazzled by features or led by the technology itself. It’s not as glamorous but understanding your processes and how you want to work, the aims you need and want to achieve, then consulting the market, doing pilots and knowing specifically what you want to change, is a much more fruitful way of working with technology.
The existential questions
Whether it be the sustainability of law firm revenue models or the very need for lawyers, GenAI throws up thorny existential questions that need to all be on the table – and they were.
Herrity observed that it seems clear that time taken cannot be the primary metric anymore, but still there is uncertainty about how to that might change (for the better).
Those offering fixed fees remain the most motivated to utilize tech for efficiency. Bassi said: “Time-saving benefit is going to be better aligned with fixed-fee matters, as attributing a disbursement for an AI delivered output for an hourly-rate matter is going to be a more difficult sell to clients.”
What is interesting is that the firms round the table over dinner have either made good headway to move away from the billable hour or have ditched it entirely. CG Professionals and Bexley Beaumont use value-based billing to charge customers. Technology and efficiency is an additive. It raises the question over, going forward, who the GenAI leaders might be, given that we normally focus our sights on big firms with large budgets – but with plenty of challenges around changing their culture.
A further existential question is over how lawyers prove their worth. Bassi said: “The deprecation of developing traditional legal skills has continued to become a talking point ever since AI has become such a topic of conversation. While this was acknowledged in the room, the conversation needs to shift to developing skills to delivering legal services in an increasingly driven AI world.”
From the law student’s perspective, the future career path is less certain. Josh Bramall, a student at Manchester University, said: “How do we as lawyers still prove our worth, with all these new technologies around that are seemingly becoming more and more effective and accessible – does it render me studying a law degree obsolete? Should I simply just study prompt engineering and then fact check my sources when they’re given to me – it would save me £40k in student loan fees?”
He adds: “Senior practitioners have the experience and nous to prove their USP, but for a junior like myself, what makes me more valuable or effective then these technologies that could soon be used by any layperson, especially with the inevitable genesis of agentic AI tools.”
Will law students still need to read lengthy judgements and cases? If not how will it impact their capabilities, and will we see a so called ‘generational deficit’? “This is a microcosm for broader issue around how tech will affect the next generation of lawyers,” Bramall said.
Wins, opportunities and milestones
What was notable over dinner is that most people are pro-AI in some form, as Herrity observes: “People have moved past denial and resistance – they’re now accepting this tech is already or very soon will be the status quo, so they’re focusing on how to deploy realistically and safely so that they can service client needs effectively whilst futureproofing their businesses.”
Some see tech and GenAI in particular as an opportunity for greater client partnership. It’s another string that helps to drive a closer relationship while showcasing the ability to be commercial and practical on commoditised work.
What was particularly notable is that most people round the table had a signed off GenAI working policy – even if recent – and most were using Copilot.
It feels as though we should all be miles ahead of where we are now and shooting off press releases about our fabulous achievements. The reality is that this stuff is hard. Yes, there is an urgency. But we need honest conversations, clear plans, and to celebrate the milestones as they pass.