It’s
tough
to
be
a
law
firm
managing
partner
in
the
age
of
AI.
So
many
choices,
so
little
time.
It’s
like
the
proverbial
kid
in
the
candy
store
who
has
so
many
choices
that
they
either
can’t
pick
out
anything
or
reach
for
too
much.
We
see
evidence
of
the
first
option
in
8am’s
recent
outstanding
Legal
Industry
Report,
authored
by
Niki
Black.
8am’s
Legal
Industry
Report
One
thing
that
stood
out
in
the
report
was
the
discrepancy
between
use
of
AI
by
individual
legal
professionals
and
what
firms
are
doing
when
it
comes
to
AI
adoption
and
guidance.
Almost
75%
of
those
who
responded
said
they
were
using
general
purpose
AI
tools
like
ChatGPT
and
Claude
for
work
purposes.
That’s
pretty
significant.
But
43%
say
their
firms
have
no
policy
for
the
use
of
these
AI
tools.
Only
9%
have
current
guidelines
in
place.
Seventy-one
percent
say
their
firms
have
no
current
training
on
the
responsible
use
of
AI.
Only
54%
say
their
firms
have
adopted
legal
specific
AI
tools.
I
know.
It’s
all
too
easy
to
do
nothing
and
stick
your
head
in
the
sand.
Importantly,
the
study
included
responses
from
over
1,300
legal
professionals
of
whom
45%
were
solo
practitioners
who
are
self-governed
and
trained.
But
There
May
be
More
to
the
Story
But
there
could
be
something
else
at
work.
Firms
are
currently
faced
with
a
myriad
of
AI
choices.
Just
walking
the
exhibit
hall
at
Legalweek,
I
noticed
just
about
every
vendor
was
offering
some
kind
of
AI
tool.
How
do
firms
know
which
one
is
the
best
for
their
client
mix?
And
for
that
matter,
is
a
single
tool
best
for
every
practice
group?
Or
for
every
lawyer?
The
fact
is,
they
are
not.
That
means
firms
must
either
make
some
hard
choices
(never
easy
in
a
consensus
decision-making
organization)
or
buy
a
multitude
of
tools.
Or
throw
up
their
hands
and
do
nothing,
letting
individual
lawyers
decide
for
themselves,
which
drives
them
to
the
more
public
models
like
ChatGPT,
Claude,
or
Gemini.
Which
could
in
part
explain
the
8am
findings.
It’s
hard
and
time
consuming
for
law
firms
to
drink
from
the
firehose
of
AI
information
and
determine
what
is
best
for
all
their
legal
professionals
and
lines
of
business.
So,
they
just
ignore
the
issue
altogether.
But
having
no
guidelines
or
training
risks
all
kinds
of
problems
as
we
well
know.
Firms
have
to
recognize
lawyers
are
using
the
general
tools
and
take
steps
to
be
sure
it’s
done
responsibly.
The
Hodge-Podge
Solution
The
other
option
to
which
some
firms
resort
is
overcorrection
and
try
to
do
too
much.
These
firms
turn
to
a
variety
of
AI
tools
and
experiment
with
AI
across
practice
groups
and
lines
of
business.
Driven
in
part
by
FOMO,
firms
are
purchasing
pilots
and
letting
lawyers
play
with
them.
When
it
doesn’t
suit
all,
they
go
to
the
next
one
and
on
and
on.
They
don’t
think
through
what
work
or
problems
they
need
the
AI
tools
to
do
and
solve.
They
don’t
take
time
to
look
at
workflows
and
what
lawyers
need
to
practice
day
to
day.
It’s
a
hodge-podge
solution.
But
that
too
carries
risks.
I
recently
ran
across
an
article
in
Artificial
Lawyer
by
Ben
Nicholson,
the
General
Manager
of
Clio’s
UK
Enterprise.
The
thrust
of
the
article
was
that
firms
employ
various
systems
to
do
various
tasks
but
that
switching
between
them
costs
time
and
energy.
As
Nicholson
puts
it,
“Fee
earners
jump
between
systems
that
were
never
designed
to
operate
as
one
environment:
time
in
one
place,
documents
in
another,
client
and
matter
data
somewhere
else
again.”
And
when
it
comes
to
AI
adoption,
all
too
often
matters
are
not
defined
correctly,
workflows
vary
by
team
and
location,
so
outputs
drift.
And
as
a
result,
workers
get
frustrated.
I
hearken
back
to
my
days
practicing.
All
too
often,
the
clunkiness
of
the
various
systems
with
which
I
had
to
work
resulted
in
me
just
going
outside
firm
software
to
Google,
Dropbo,x
and
other
tools
that
just
worked.
(I
hope
our
IT
Director
doesn’t
read
this.)
The
problem
was
I
was
busy
and
didn’t
have
time
or
energy
to
figure
out
how
to
use
other
tools.
If
a
firm’s
internally
adopted
AI
tool
is
clunky
or
doesn’t
work
well
with
other
systems,
then
lawyers
are
going
to
flock
to
the
easy-to-use
private
systems,
particularly
since
they
are
already
using
and
familiar
with
them.
They
don’t
cost
much
and
they
are
easy
to
work
with.
Secondly,
if
a
firm
has
multiple
internal
systems,
finding
the
best
one
to
use
for
various
tasks
also
takes
time
and
energy.
If
not
done,
or
not
done
correctly,
it
will
also
lead
lawyers
to
the
public
systems.
What
Does
This
Tell
Us?
First
and
foremost,
firms
need
to
recognize
lawyers
are
going
to
use
and
are
using
the
publicly
available
systems.
It’s
a
fact
of
life.
And
for
some
things,
let’s
face
it,
that
makes
sense.
So,
trying
to
stop
them
from
using
these
tools
is
futile
and
counterproductive.
Moreover,
creating
rules
that
aren’t
grounded
in
reality
breeds
disrespect
and
risks
those
affected
will
conclude
all
the
rules
are
rules
for
the
sake
of
rules.
The
result
is
they
simply
ignore
the
lot
of
them.
All
of
which
means
whatever
firms
decide,
at
the
very
least
they
need
to
double
down
on
training
and
making
sure
lawyers
and
legal
professionals
know
when
to
use
and
perhaps
more
importantly
when
not
to
use
these
systems.
Realistic
guidelines
are
important,
even
if
a
firm
does
not
adopt
an
AI
tool
across
the
board.
Even
solos,
for
whom
the
notion
of
formal
guidelines
seems
silly,
still
need
to
investigate
and
understand
the
AI
systems.
Relatedly,
law
firms
need
to
recognize
that
these
systems
are
getting
better
and
can
do
more
of
the
work
lawyers
need.
That’s
not
going
to
change
in
the
future
so
what
is
imposed
today
may
make
little
sense
tomorrow.
Firms
need
to
recognize
that,
if
they
do
decide
to
adopt
internal
systems,
those
systems
need
to
be
intuitive
and
easy
to
use.
They
need
to
help
lawyers
do
their
specialized
work
—
what
a
litigator
needs
from
an
AI
system
is
far
different
than
what
a
trusts
and
estate
lawyer
needs.
So,
purchasing
decisions
need
to
be
made
with
this
in
mind.
For
some
firms,
one
system
is
fine.
For
others,
various
systems
may
be
necessary.
But
decisions
require
careful
analysis
of
the
workflows
and
what
the
tools
can
do
second.
Finally,
firms
need
to
be
wary
of
the
AI
(and
other
technology)
creep.
Trying
to
house
too
many
systems
and
have
them
work
together
can
produce
the
unintended
result
of
lawyers
not
using
any
of
them
and
turning
to
the
public,
low-cost
tools
for
things
that,
for
now,
they
shouldn’t
be.
Bottom
line,
firms
need
to
recognize
reality,
define
what
their
legal
professionals
need,
and
then
determine
how
to
adopt
and
govern
the
use
of
AI
tools.
Neither
doing
nothing
nor
buying
multiple
AI
platforms
is
the
solution.
Spending
the
time
to
study
and
investigate
the
problems
and
the
solution
on
an
ongoing
basis
is.
So,
managing
partners,
roll
up
your
sleeves
and
do
the
hard
work.
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.