Firms
are
struggling
with
robust
AI
adoption.
If
it
wasn’t
bad
enough
before,
firms
are
now
facing
more
and
more
client
pressure
to
do
something
with
AI.
Anything.
And
that
can
lead
to
even
greater
adoption
problems.
But
the
solution
may
be
as
simple
as
avoiding
the
classic
perish
for
lack
of
knowledge
trap.
I
attended
an
interesting
panel
discussion
at
the
ILTA
EVOLVE
conference
that
faced
head
on
the
problems
many
firms
are
having
with
GenAI
and
client
pressures.
The
presentation
was
entitled
From
Hype
to
FOMO
to
Fully
Funded:
Building
a
Defensible
AI
Investment
Plan
and
Roadmap.
The
panelists
were
Dan
Paquette
of
the
consulting
firm
Kraft
Kennedy,
James
Wang,
the
cofounder
of
legal
tech
company
Postilize,
Chad
Ergun,
CIO
of
the
Womble
law
firm,
and
Kristen
Baylis,
Technology
Counsel
of
the
Orrick
law
firm.
Nice
mix
of
consultants,
a
vendo,r
and
those
who
actually
work
in
a
law
firm.
Client
AI
Demands
Baylis
and
Ergun
identified
an
important
trend.
Instead
of
pressure
to
adopt
AI
coming
from
inside
law
firms
or
from
competition,
it’s
now
coming
from
clients.
Clients
who
are
saying
if
you
don’t
adopt
AI
in
months
or
even
weeks,
we
are
going
to
take
our
business
someplace
else.
The
reaction
of
many
firms
is
panic.
Knee-jerk
buying
of
AI
products,
any
AI
products
to
demonstrate
to
the
clients
that
they
have
AI.
They
buy
without
thinking
what
they
need
AI
for
in
their
practice.
They
don’t
understand
what
the
client
really
wants.
They
don’t
know
enough
to
know
what
AI
can
do
and
what
it
can’t.
They
don’t
know
how
to
integrate
into
their
existing
systems
or
what
problem
they
want
to
solve.
Or
what
goals
they
want
to
achieve
with
it.
It’s
a
“let’s
just
placate
the
client
approach.”
And
client
expectations
are
often
unreasonable.
They
see
AI
being
applied
in
apps
they
use
in
everyday
life
seamlessly
and
expect
their
law
firms
to
be
able
to
come
up
with
the
same
thing.
Today,
not
tomorrow.
A
Hot
Mess
The
result
is
predictably
disaster.
The
firm
spends
a
bunch
of
money
to
get
something
that
no
one
understands,
and
no
one
uses.
And
it
doesn’t
take
most
clients
long
to
figure
it
out,
so
they
aren’t
happy
either.
It’s
a
problem
further
compounded
by
the
unrealistic
expectations
of
the
client.
So
even
if
the
firm
gets
AI
that
works
well
for
them,
it’s
not
enough.
The
clients,
themselves,
often
don’t
know
what
AI
can
and
can’t
do
or
how
it
can
help
their
lawyers.
They
too
don’t
know
what
their
goals
are.
Lower
fees?
Better
work
product?
Fewer
lawyers
working
on
files?
It’s
show
us
you
have
AI,
instead
of
we
want
you
to
employ
AI
to
do
certain
defined
things
in
our
interest.
Add
to
all
this
the
fact
that
firms
may
have
multiple
clients
making
inconsistent
or
even
conflicting
demands.
In
the
typical
firm,
this
means
the
partner
in
charge
of
each
client
marches
straight
to
the
managing
partner’s
office
and
demands
the
firm
get
the
AI
that
the
client
thinks
they
want
even
if
that
doesn’t
integrate
with
what
the
firm
already
has.
More
expense,
more
tools
that
don’t
work.
More
frustration
with
AI,
the
managing
partner,
and
the
client.
It’s
a
hot
mess.
There
Is
a
Solution
Midway
into
the
discussion,
Baylis
made
an
interesting
point.
Firms
need
to
take
the
time
to
educate
their
lawyers
and
legal
professionals,
particularly
the
decision
makers
and,
I
would
add,
the
rainmakers,
about
the
fundamentals
of
AI.
Things
like
how
it
works.
What
it
can
do.
How
it
can
be
used.
Her
point:
this
will
enable
the
lawyers
to
have
intelligent
discussions
with
their
clients
when
faced
with
their
AI
demands.
But
I
would
go
further.
Not
only
could
this
kind
of
education
reduce
the
chances
of
things
like
hallucinations,
but
it
would
also
enable
the
lawyers
to
be
the
leader
in
the
client
relationship.
To
be
able
to
say
to
client,
that’s
a
good
idea
you
have
for
us
to
adopt
AI,
now
let’s
talk
about
what
you
want
to
achieve
with
it.
What
problems
you
want
to
address.
And
here’s
what
tools
we
are
using,
and
how
they
could
be
used
to
solve
your
problem.
That’s
a
whole
lot
better
start
than
buying
AI
to
say
we
have
it.
Of
course,
to
get
there,
the
firm
must
ask
itself
the
same
hard
questions
about
how
AI
fits
into
their
own
needs
and
goals.
And
to
do
that,
firms
need
to
themselves
drill
down
strategically
and
ask
where
they
want
to
go.
As
Ergun
pointed
out:
firms
need
to
ask
themselves
before
buying
AI,
what
is
their
vision
for
the
next
12-18
months
and
how
will
AI
help
them
get
there.
As
one
of
the
PowerPoint
screens
of
the
panel
put
it,
“AI
starts
with
business
strategy.”
But
You
Have
to
Get
There,
First
Only
by
doing
this
internal
education
and
introspection
can
firms
then
pivot
to
select
the
right
AI
for
themselves,
meet
legitimate
client
demands,
and
sort
through
the
hype
of
many
vendors
that
are
raising
unrealistic
expectations.
Zach
Abramowitz
talked
about
the
same
thing
in
his
keynote
at
this
very
conference
which
I
reported:
too
many
lawyers
really
don’t
understand
GenAI
and
therefore
can’t
use
it
effectively.
You
have
to
start
with
really
understanding
AI.
It
begins
with
education.
Real
education.
But
there
is
one
more
thing
that
Baylis
mentioned.
Often
lawyers
depend
on
the
administrative
or
business
side
of
firms
to
make
AI
recommendations.
So,
the
lawyers
by
and
large
don’t
attend
conferences
like
EVOLVE.
They
send
their
IT
or
information
folks
to
report
back
on
what’s
going
on.
That’s
all
well
and
good.
But
it
assumes
these
administrative
and
business
side
folks
understand
the
practice
of
law.
All
too
often,
says
Baylis,
they
don’t.
And
when
they
don’t,
they
“can’t
isolate
what
they
need
to
really
solve,”
as
she
put
it.
Again,
it’s
education.
And
by
the
way,
it
would
help
if
vendors
would
take
time
to
do
the
same.
So
many
don’t
understand
what
lawyers
do
or
their
business
model.
Why
don’t
lawyers
come
to
meetings
like
EVOLVE,
for
example?
The
law
firm
business
model
is
based
on
time
spent
and
billed
on
client
matters.
The
billable
hour
is
the
highest
economic
priority.
You
can
like
it
or
hate
it
but
it’s
economic
reality.
Vendors
often
don’t
get
it.
They
don’t
get
the
pressures
on
lawyers.
They
don’t
get
the
pain
points.
Education
is
the
Key
It
all
starts
with
education.
It’s
not
always
fun
or
sexy.
It’s
hard
work.
It
takes
commitment
by
the
firm,
its
lawyers,
its
business
side,
and
vendors
to
walk
in
each
other’s
shoes.
But
for
those
that
make
the
commitment,
the
rewards
in
the
new
world
of
AI
will
be
great.
Happy
clients.
More
work.
Thriving
with
an
abundance
of
knowledge.
And
empowering
lawyers
to
do
something
they
pride
themselves
on:
cutting
through
bullshit
for
the
good
of
their
clients.
Stephen
Embry
is
a
lawyer,
speaker,
blogger,
and
writer.
He
publishes TechLaw
Crossroads,
a
blog
devoted
to
the
examination
of
the
tension
between
technology,
the
law,
and
the
practice
of
law.