My
first
experience
with
technology
adoption
for
a
law
firm
was
probably
in
1993.
I
was
attending
a
partner
meeting
for
a
top
Am
Law
firm
to
demonstrate
the
first
version
of
Lexis
on
Microsoft
Windows.
My
pitch
was
strong
enough
to
get
a
partner
to
grab
the
mouse
and
try
for
himself.
The
problem
was
that
he
had
never
used
a
computer
before.
When
the
partner
grabbed
the
mouse,
he
accidentally
highlighted
half
the
screen.
Embarrassed,
he
walked
away
without
saying
a
word.
Recently,
I
was
speaking
with
a
legal
innovator
in
charge
of
evaluating
Harvey
and
Legora.
My
advice
was
to
be
realistic
and
manage
expectations
regarding
likely
adoption.
Why?
Because
even
the
most
pervasive
AI
deployments
at
firms
may
have
just
a
small
concentration
of
power
users.
I
wrote
earlier
about
the
adoption
curve,
and
in
my
opinion,
most
power
users
are
early
adopters,
comprising
a
small
percentage
of
attorneys
in
a
firm.
Attorneys
are
busy
and
under
pressure
to
achieve
billable
hour
targets.
Despite
the
best
intentions,
there
is
often
little
time
to
invest
in
learning
a
better
way.
Most
attorneys
struggle
to
adopt
new
technology
and
adapt
to
change
for
this
reason.
Mandatory
changes,
like
the
shift
to
Windows
11,
are
the
exception.
The
new
operating
system
will
show
up,
and
attorneys
will
adapt.
Absent
a
mandate,
most
attorneys
will
behave
like
the
early
and
late
majority
on
the
adoption
curve.
They
will
change
after
they
see
the
benefits
from
their
peers.
Partners
tend
to
behave
like
laggards
on
the
adoption
curve.
Most
won’t
change
unless
absolutely
necessary.
Senior
partners
may
be
less
familiar
with
technology
in
general.
It
could
have
been
years
since
they
last
logged
into
Westlaw,
and
they
may
still
make
references
to
the
CCH
Standard
Fed
or
have
a
tattered
BNA
Portfolio
on
their
bookshelf.
Here
are
three
ways
to
help
deal
with
the
adoption
challenges:
-
Just-In-Time
Training
The
Lean
Manufacturing
movement
of
the
late
1980s
and
early
1990s
included
a
concept
called
just-in-time.
Machines
would
be
retooled
to
create
a
custom
run
when
an
order
was
placed.
While
counterintuitive,
the
approach
was
more
efficient
as
it
reduced
unnecessary
inventory
and
waste.
The
same
approach
might
be
considered
for
training
on
AI
initiatives.
Your
early
adopters
will
jump
at
the
opportunity
to
learn
something
new,
but
the
majority
of
attorneys
will
not
use
a
new
technology
until
there
is
a
need.
That
need
may
arise
when
a
client
specifies
the
use
of
a
new
technology.
For
the
majority,
training
before
they
have
a
need
is
going
to
be
wasteful.
Most
of
the
learning
will
be
forgotten,
and
they
will
need
to
be
retrained
when
the
need
becomes
relevant.
Training
will
be
most
effective
when
an
attorney
sees
the
need
to
adapt.
Consider
a
video
library
of
training
materials
developed
in
conjunction
with
your
early
adopters.
This
can
be
the
basis
of
a
just-in-time
training
program
for
the
majority
of
attorneys
in
the
firm. It’s
good
to
recognize
this
dynamic
and
embrace
it,
as
it
will
reduce
frustration
for
all.
Unless
there
is
a
need
to
use
a
new
technology,
training
can
lack
effectiveness.
Scott
Bailey,
director
of
Research
and
Knowledge
Services
at
Eversheds
Sutherland
says,
“The
firm
makes
a
point
to
use
early
adopters
in
their
training
videos
to
provide
a
testimonial
of
sorts,
sharing
the
benefits
of
the
new
AI
technology
from
an
attorney’s
point
of
view.
It
adds
credibility
and
helps
with
engagement
in
the
training
experience.”
-
Metrics
And
Leadership
Buy-In
Facts
are
friendly.
Keep
track
of
who
your
early
adopters
are
and
how
they
distinguish
themselves
from
their
peers.
If
you
can
find
any
data
that
correlates
to
their
adoption
of
new
technology,
keep
track
of
it.
For
example,
is
it
possible
to
demonstrate
higher
utilization
or
greater
realization
among
those
who
have
been
trained
and
use
new
technology?
Also,
consider
appealing
to
leadership
for
a
just-in-time
approach
for
training
those
attorneys
in
the
majority
of
the
adoption
curve.
Tell
them
what
you
are
proposing
and
why.
It
is
budget
season,
and
perhaps
you
can
justify
the
expense
for
better
quality
training
videos
or
for
staffing
that
needs
to
be
available
on-demand
for
follow-up
training
when
client
needs
arise.
Help
leadership
understand
that
adoption
will
be
incremental
based
on
the
needs
of
the
firm.
Keep
track
of
the
number
of
training
sessions,
the
effort
required,
and
the
results
of
just-in-time
training.
It
may
be
more
costly,
but
if
you
can
point
back
to
the
success
of
early
adopters,
it
may
create
the
business
case
you
need.
Advocacy
and
aircover
from
leadership
is
empowering
and
can
be
the
difference
between
success
and
failure
of
initiatives.
-
Require
Partner
Training
As
you
engage
leadership,
it
may
be
possible
to
address
the
elephant
in
the
room.
Partners
are
going
to
be
less
likely
to
use
new
technologies,
but
they
do
need
to
understand
their
capabilities
to
effectively
direct
staff
and
to
be
more
credible
in
front
of
clients. If
possible,
get
leadership
to
agree
that
cursory,
hands-on
training
will
help
partners
be
more
effective
in
their
practices
and
with
clients.
It
may
require
finding
an
advocate
or
two
in
leadership,
but
it
is
worth
trying.
Summary
The
story
of
the
partner
who
didn’t
know
how
to
use
a
computer
is
a
strong
reminder
that
the
problem
of
technology
adoption
in
firms
is
challenging. The
successful
adoption
of
an
AI
initiative
requires
a
holistic
view
of
people,
processes,
and
technology.
The
natural
tendency
is
to
focus
on
the
technology
portion.
Training
is
a
significant
undertaking
and
can
be
underestimated,
with
a
long
tail
for
adoption.
Metrics
can
help
explain
the
challenges
and
persuade
leadership.
Establishing
realistic
expectations
for
adoption
can
be
the
difference
between
an
initiative
being
viewed
as
a
success
or
a
failure.
Set
yourself
up
for
success.
Any
incremental
advocacy
from
leadership
will
increase
the
potential
success
of
your
initiatives.
Consider
setting
the
goal
of
adoption
by
groups.
Can
you
get
10%
of
attorneys
to
lead
in
the
adoption
of
a
new
technology?
Can
you
offer
just-in-time
training
for
attorneys
to
respond
effectively
when
the
need
arises?
Your
firm
can
be
better
equipped
to
outpace
its
peers
in
AI
adoption
if
you
set
realistic
expectations
and
meet
attorneys
where
they
are
at.
Make
it
natural
to
find
training
relevant
at
the
right
moment,
and
you’ll
attract
more
converts
and
advocates!
Ken
Crutchfield
has
over
forty
years
of
experience
in
legal,
tax,
and
other
industries.
Throughout
his
career,
he
has
focused
on
growth,
innovation,
and
business
transformation. His
consulting
practice
advises
investors,
legal
tech
startups
and
others.
As
a
strategic
thinker
who
understands
markets
and
creating
products
to
meet
customer
needs,
he
has
worked
in
start-ups
and
large
enterprises.
He
has
served
in
General
Management
capacities
in
six
businesses.
Ken
has
a
pulse
on
the
trends
affecting
the
market.
Whether
it
was
the
Internet
in
the
1980s
or
Generative
AI,
he
understands
technology
and
how
it
can
impact
business.
Crutchfield
started
his
career
as
an
intern
with
LexisNexis
and
has
worked
at
Thomson
Reuters,
Bloomberg,
Dun
&
Bradstreet,
and
Wolters
Kluwer.
Ken
has
an
MBA
and
holds
a
B.S.
in
Electrical
Engineering
from
The
Ohio
State
University.