There’s
understandable
concern
that
AI
is
replacing
in-house
legal
jobs.
Whether
it’s
increasing
layoffs,
reducing
headcount,
or
shifting
resources
and
priorities,
the
potential
of
AI
tools
has
impacted
everyone’s
role.
AI
is
already
replacing
my
job
without
firing
me
(for
now).
Legal
executives
expect
the
work
of
in-house
legal
teams
to
start
and
end
with
AI
tools.
This
expectation
makes
sense
given
that
a
key
role
of
legal
executives
is
to
use
legal
costs
efficiently,
and
AI
tools
have
the
most
appealing
potential
to
reduce
time
and
costs
on
research,
contract
drafting,
case
management,
providing
guidance,
and
other
projects.
The
problem
is
that
in-house
lawyers
do
not
need
legal
executives
to
remind
them
that
AI
tools
exist.
We
need
legal
executives
to
do
what
they
are
best
at,
removing
hurdles
to
any
solution
that
can
streamline
our
work,
whether
AI-based
or
not.
Doing
so
will
free
up
energy
for
lawyers
to
work
on
tasks
that
truly
require
an
AI
tool.
Here
are
three
ways
legal
executives
should
work
to
increase
AI
adoption
among
their
teams.
Legal
executives
going
“What
about
AI?”
to
every
problem
risks
fostering
an
environment
where
teams
feel
pressured
to
center
AI
in
every
solution.
My
colleagues
and
I
have
seen
firsthand
how
amazing
solutions
sit
on
the
backburner
as
legal
executives
pivot
to
AI.
This
overreliance
could
hinder
lawyers’
ability
to
think
critically
about
what
parts
of
a
team’s
work
should
be
changed.
We
don’t
need
ChatGPT
to
perform
math
a
calculator
can
accomplish.
The
same
logic
should
apply
to
legal
practice.
AI
tools
might
take
longer
to
implement,
present
new
risks,
address
only
part
of
the
problem,
or
fail
to
adapt
to
the
changing
needs
of
the
company.
We
can
streamline
hours-intensive
processes
with
non-AI
tools
such
as
fillable
forms,
business-facing
guidance,
and
precedent
repositories.
In
fact,
the
best
solution
to
a
lawyer-intensive
process
may
be
to
accept
the
risks
of
not
doing
parts
of
the
process
at
all
or
allowing
business
teams
to
manage
the
process
alone.
Legal
executives
should
not
expect
an
AI-based
approach
to
replace
an
entire
process
as
it
exists.
Few
streamlining
solutions
in
legal
practice
involve
a
single
tool
or
else
we
would
have
come
up
with
it
sooner.
For
many
automation
tools
available
before
large
language
models,
lawyers
had
to
adjust
processes
and
standards
to
meet
those
automation
tools
where
they
were.
We
didn’t
refuse
to
lay
tracks
for
trains.
So,
AI
solutions
will
require
both
human
and
AI
inputs.
To
start
using
AI
tools
to
draft
some
contracts,
you
should
first
simplify
the
contracting
forms
and
processes
down
to
something
digestible
and
then
use
AI
tools
in
places
where
they
are
less
likely
to
fail.
To
start
using
AI
tools
to
conduct
research
or
draft
a
memo
for
me,
I
might
still
run
that
research
by
outside
counsel
to
confirm
the
sources
and
point
out
any
considerations
I
missed.
Many
legal
executives
require
their
teams,
on
top
of
their
typical
workload,
to
come
up
with
AI
solutions
independently
despite
insufficient
training,
guidance,
and
resources.
The
in-house
AI
training
and
guidance
for
many
of
my
colleagues
involve
a
group
call
about
how
one
person
used
an
AI
tool
from
a
list
of
approved
AI
tools
(often
inferior
to
unapproved
AI
tools)
to
improve
one
aspect
of
their
job.
That’s
great
for
them.
Although
a
bottom-up
approach
to
discovering
AI
solutions
allows
in-house
lawyers
to
look
closely
at
how
to
streamline
their
own
tasks,
we
still
need
top-down
coordination
to
efficiently
implement
AI
tools
at
the
pace
expected
from
legal
executives.
Imagine
a
company
where
every
in-house
legal
team
sought
their
own
outside
counsel
or
legal
technology
for
research,
case,
and
contract
management
with
zero
coordination.
We
would
consider
that
company
prone
to
inconsistent
standards
and
time-intensive
redundancies
in
their
work.
That
is
why
most
large
companies
dedicate
internal
and
external
professionals
to
maintaining
and
improving
in-house
legal
teams’
relationships
with
outside
counsel
and
legal
technology.
We
would
never
expect
in-house
legal
teams
to
adopt
law
firms
and
other
legal
technology
without
any
top-down
coordination,
so
why
should
AI
be
any
different?
Earl
Grey
(not
his
real
name)
is
an
in-house
attorney
at
a
Fortune
500 tech
company.
You
can reach him by
email
at [email protected].