Here’s
what
we
know:
80%
of
legal
teams
are
using
generative
AI
according
to
ILTA’s
2025
Technology
Survey.
That’s
impressive
adoption
for
a
technology
that
barely
existed
two
years
ago.
But
now,
as
we
enter
the
era
of
agentic
AI,
legal
teams
are
being
asked
to
rethink
everything
again.
The
question
isn’t
whether
agentic
AI
will
change
legal
work.
It’s
whether
firms
will
change
how
they
adopt
technology.
Successful
adoption
requires
both
well-designed
technology
and
robust
people-centered
strategies.
You
can’t
technology
your
way
out
of
habit
formation
challenges,
and
you
can’t
adoption-strategy
your
way
out
of
poorly
designed
tools.
Most
organizations
are
investing
heavily
in
one
while
underinvesting
in
the
other.
Why
Habits-Not
Technology-Determine
Adoption
I’ve
spent
my
career
studying
how
people
adopt
new
ways
of
working,
and
I’ve
learned
that
technology
transformations
fail
when
we
treat
them
as
technology
problems.
The
legal
industry
is
about
to
make
that
mistake
again
with
agentic
AI,
investing
in
sophisticated
orchestration
platforms
while
ignoring
the
basic
psychology
of
habit
formation.
We’re
solving
for
capability
when
the
real
bottleneck
is
adoption,
and
most
AI
adoption
strategies
don’t
plan
for
abandonment.
Forming
a
new
habit
or
way
of
working
takes
time
and
repetition.
Behavioral
science
tells
us
most
humans
fail
when
trying
to
start
a
new
habit,
not
because
they
lack
capability
or
commitment,
but
because
habits
require
sustained
practice
before
they
become
routine.
And
when
people
stumble,
which
they
will,
they
need
structured
support
to
restart.
Research
from
Prosci
shows
that
projects
with
excellent
change
management
are
seven
times
more
likely
to
succeed—proof
that
the
people
side
isn’t
optional.
But
most
firms
roll
out
AI
tools
with
a
pilot
group,
a
training
session,
a
Slack
channel,
and
the
best
of
intentions.
Then
six
months
later,
they’re
puzzled
when
usage
metrics
flatline.
The
technology
didn’t
fail.
The
adoption
design
did.
Designing
for
Adoption:
Expect
the
Dip,
Build
the
Restart
If
you’re
serious
about
adoption,
here’s
what
you
need
to
build
into
your
strategy—not
after
tools
fail,
but
from
day
one:
Expect
the
dip:
Usage
typically
drops
30-40%
after
the
initial
excitement.
Build
that
into
your
timeline
and
communicate
it
upfront
so
teams
don’t
interpret
the
dip
as
failure.
Create
restart
rituals:
Monthly
“office
hours”
where
someone
coaches
lawyers
through
their
actual
work
using
the
tool.
Not
generic
demos,
real-time
problem-solving
with
their
documents,
their
clients,
their
workflow
friction
points.
Showcase
wins:
Establish
a
regular
forum-lunch-and-learns,
showcase
sessions,
or
a
win-room
channel—where
early
adopters
share
what
they’re
accomplishing
with
the
tool.
Not
generic
success
stories,
but
specific:
“Here’s
how
I
used
it
to
catch
a
critical
disclosure
error”
or
“Here’s
how
it
saved
me
3
hours
on
this
negotiation.”
Make
visible
progress
contagious.
People
adopt
faster
when
they
see
peers
solving
real
problems.
Normalize
stopping
and
starting:
Send
a
focused
message
three
months
in:
“If
you
aren’t
still
using
a
new
tool
to
your
advantage,
here’s
how
to
restart.”
Give
permission
to
be
inefficient
to
allow
people
to
relearn.
Track
abandonment
as
a
success
metric:
If
you’re
not
measuring
who
stops
using
tools
and
why,
you’re
not
serious
about
adoption.
The
restart
data
is
more
valuable
than
the
initial
adoption
data.
These
restart
strategies
are
critical,
but
they
work
best
when
embedded
in
a
broader
readiness
approach.
Strategic
Readiness
for
Legal
Leaders
To
prepare
for
the
agentic
era,
legal
leaders
should
focus
on
readiness,
not
hype.
Here’s
what
that
actually
means:
Start
with
the
problem
and
your
skeptics.
Before
evaluating
any
tool,
identify
the
specific
problem
you’re
solving,
and
involve
your
skeptics
in
defining
it.
These
are
the
respected
practitioners
who
won’t
adopt
until
they
see
real
value.
When
they
help
identify
the
problem,
they’re
invested
in
finding
a
solution.
Adoption
fails
when
it’s
done
to
people
rather
than
with
them.
Your
skeptics
will
ask
the
hard
questions
that
prevent
expensive
failures
later.
Name
what’s
being
lost,
not
just
gained.
People
resist
change
when
they
can’t
articulate
what
they’re
giving
up.
Be
explicit:
“Yes,
this
changes
how
you
work.
You’ll
spend
less
time
hunting
for
precedents
and
more
time
applying
judgment
to
complex
negotiations.
That
means
learning
new
workflows
during
your
busiest
quarter.
Here’s
how
we’re
supporting
that.”
Create
psychological
safety
for
the
learning
curve.
Agentic
AI
isn’t
always
intuitive.
Teams
need
explicit
permission
to
be
inefficient
while
they
learn,
or
they’ll
abandon
tools
at
the
first
frustration.
Build
“protected
practice
time”
into
billable
hour
expectations
for
the
first
90
days.
Choose
the
right
workflows
and
fix
broken
processes
first.
Target
high-impact
areas
where
complexity
meets
volume—but
only
where
teams
have
capacity
to
learn.
Don’t
pilot
AI
on
your
most
time-pressured
process.
And
if
your
data
is
inconsistent
or
your
systems
don’t
talk
to
each
other,
pause
the
AI
conversation
entirely.
Agentic
systems
amplify
good
processes
and
expose
broken
ones,
they
don’t
fix
them.
Define
success
metrics
beyond
time
saved.
Track
error
reduction,
negotiation
speed,
surfaced
risks,
and
abandonment/restart
rates.
The
adoption
journey
matters
as
much
as
the
efficiency
gains.
Establish
governance
frameworks
with
auditability,
traceability,
and
clear
human-in-the-loop
controls.
This
isn’t
red
tape;
it’s
the
foundation
that
allows
teams
to
experiment
safely.
The
Path
Forward
The
future
of
legal
work
won’t
be
defined
by
who
adopts
AI
first,
but
by
who
adopts
it
wisely.
And
wisdom,
in
this
case,
means
understanding
that
technology
transformation
is
fundamentally
a
human
transformation,
one
that
requires
patience,
support,
and
planned
restarts
when
people
inevitably
stumble.
The
question
isn’t
whether
agentic
AI
will
change
legal
work.
It’s
whether
your
firm
will
change
how
it
adopts
technology.
Ready
to
see
technology
designed
with
adoption
in
mind?
Learn
more
about
Litera
One
and
Lito
and
Lito
or
Schedule
a
demo
today.