Images
AI
is
entering
legal
workflows
with
a
sense
of
inevitability.
To
borrow
from
Hemingway,
imagine
a
conversation
in
five
to
ten
years
between
two
Managing
Partners:
“How
did
your
firm’s
legal
workflows
get
so
completely
taken
over
by
AI?”
“Two
ways,”
the
other
replies.
“Gradually,
then
suddenly.”
This
article
is
not
about
whether
that
outcome
is
right
or
wrong
or
whether
AI
is
good
or
bad.
AI
is,
fundamentally,
a
tool
—
like
many
others
that
have
come
before
it.
However,
this
particular
tool
can
increasingly
run
business
processes
autonomously,
including
legal
workflows.
As
such,
it
carries
significant
transformational
potential
and
risk.
Assuming
the
trajectory
proves
true,
the
question
becomes:
How
do
we
design
the
human
into
modern
legal
workflows?
How
human
should
they
be?
Recently,
the
authors
of
this
article,
three
knowledge
and
innovation
professionals
working
in
law
firms
and
one
co-founder
of
a
company
serving
the
legal-tech
industry,
participated
in
a
panel
discussion
on
AI
Overload,
a
growing
phenomenon
brought
on
by
the
flood
of
GenAI
tools
entering
the
legal
sector.
It
quickly
became
apparent
that
we
were
only
scratching
the
surface
of
a
far
more
fundamental
phenomenon.
Across
our
three
firms,
a
few
clear
themes
emerged:
1.
Adopting
AI
tools
has
already
become
business
as
usual
in
many
firms.
2.
AI
is
driving
demand
for
new
forms
of
cross-functional
collaboration
and
redefining
roles,
fueling
momentum
for
innovation.
3.
The
pace
of
adoption
is
accelerating,
driven
by
both
top-down
interest
and
bottom-up
experimentation.
In
many
ways,
new
norms
have
already
been
set
irreversibly.
While
not
every
AI
tool
will
withstand
the
test
of
time,
the
overall
impact
of
disruptive
AI
is
undeniable.
It
is
reshaping
legal
workflows
and
transforming
firm
operations
in
ways
more
profound
than
even
the
transition
to
the
cloud.
Sarah
Hirebet
points
out
that
a
new
challenge
when
investing,
as
Stradley
Ronon
has
done
in
several
preferred
GenAI
tools,
is
to
control
the
noise
and
clearly
articulate
and
communicate
across
the
firm
where
and
how
these
new
capabilities
can
realistically
support
legal
professionals.
In
particular,
the
communication
between
the
practice
groups
and
the
knowledge
team
is
key:
“Our
management
committee
is
doing
a
fantastic
job
with
leadership
here
by
highlighting
the
expertise
of
the
KM
team.
We
honor
that
collaborative
approach
by
pursuing
constant
dialogue
with
the
practice
groups
so
that
they
feel
heard
about
what
they
think
is
important.”
This
strategy
avoids
the
risk
of
investing
in
capabilities
that
end-users
are
unaware
of
by
front-loading
change
management
efforts.
It
is
also
crucial
to
prevent
the
risk
of
application
sprawl
because
lawyers
have
transparency
in
how
their
requirements
are
recorded
and
considered
in
the
decision-making
process.
Part
of
making
these
efforts
successful
is
offering
real
value
to
the
lawyers
who
invest
their
time
in
the
piloting
and
decision-making
process.
One
way
Stradley
did
this
was
through
a
significant
investment
in
carefully
designed,
practical
training. ”This
is
why
Stradley
has
sought
out
partnerships
with
legal
tech
vendors,
which
have
included
co-creating
the
pioneering
program
Stradley
Labs
Legal
GenAI
Drivers
Certification,
which
offers
hands-on
practice,
hackathons,
intensive
support
with
ethics
requirements
and
client
communications,
as
well
as
13
hours
of
CLE
credits.”
Hirebet
notes
that
Stradley
finds
vendor
relationships
bring
far
more
value
when
they
are
willing
to
go
beyond
an
exclusive
focus
on
their
platform
and
truly
invest
in
helping
lawyers
build
the
core
skills
they
need
to
embrace
the
transformative
potential
of
GenAI
thoughtfully.
It
does
not
take
a
rocket
scientist
to
understand
why
many
firms
face
a
“do
or
die”
moment
—
or
at
least,
a
seismic
shift
driven
by
a
new
technological
paradigm.
Yet,
as
stewards
of
our
firms’
intellectual
property
and
data,
not
to
mention
the
technology
itself,
we
must
ask
ourselves:
What
kind
of
firm
do
we
want
to
become?
Should
we
be
able
to
deliver
legal
work
end-to-end
with
AI
in
just
a
few
years?
Are
we
prepared,
ready,
and
willing
to
let
human
involvement
decrease
within
legal
workflows?
Considering
the
five-to-ten-year
horizon
belongs
firmly
in
today’s
strategic
roadmap.
Strategic
direction
must
shape
how
we
evaluate
AI
tools,
vendors,
and
their
product
roadmaps
now,
not
later.
Sarah
Pullin
explains:
“Our
decisions
regarding
AI
at
Baker
McKenzie
are
grounded
in
a
firmwide
vision
that
integrates
our
client
needs
and
our
content,
data,
and
expertise
strategies.
This
vision
is
operationalized
through
various
initiatives,
including
collaborating
with
trusted
third
parties.
We
continuously
assess
shifts
in
the
views
of
our
clients
and
the
legal
and
business
landscape,
asking
a
fundamental
question:
How
will
this
drive
measurable
value?
That
lens
informs
our
approach
to
content
and
data
quality,
governance,
and
risk
transparency,
ensuring
that
our
data
and
business
systems
are
optimized
for
compliance
and
efficiency
and
primed
for
AI
enablement.
We
define
success
through
tangible
outcomes
and
ultimately
our
ability
to
deliver
high-quality,
insight-driven
services
to
our
clients.”
Clearly,
all
three
firms
represented
by
the
co-authors
of
this
article
employ
well-defined
frameworks
and
governance
models
supported
by
mature,
forward-looking
strategies
that
allow
for
rapid
but
responsible
technological
change.
This
structured,
deliberate
approach
ensures
they
can
adopt
technologies
that
deliver
real,
tangible
value
to
legal
workflows.
At
the
same
time,
the
human
dimension
remains
central.
Cross-firm
communication,
interdisciplinary
task
forces,
and
dedicated
committees
are
vital
to
ensure
that
issues
like
ethics,
sustainability,
strategic
alignment,
and
competitiveness
are
appropriately
weighed.
At
K&L
Gates,
Carolyn
Austin
has
led
several
initiatives
to
establish
strong
collaborative
networks
across
the
firm.
From
formal
committees
and
small
working
groups
—
focusing
on
specific
GenAI
use
cases,
reviewing
challenges
and
feedback
—
to
PUG
(Power
User
Group)
teams
where
the
next
generation
of
lawyers
are
encouraged
to
engage.
Carolyn
says,
“Because
of
the
great
interest
in
GenAI
right
now,
we
have
a
rich
opportunity
to
engage
our
community
of
legal
professionals,
including
senior
partners,
new
associates,
and
allied
professionals,
in
practice
innovation.
Involving
task
forces
with
intentionally
diverse
roles,
multiple
skill
sets,
and
complementary
expertise
tends
to
surface
fascinating
insights.
We’re
interested
in
seeing
if
new
roles
develop
out
of
this
creative
collaboration.
As
a
global
firm,
getting
a
broad,
international
view
from
across
the
firm
is
important
for
us,
and
we
believe
this
will
help
us
keep
our
AI
initiatives
grounded,
human-centered,
and
responsive
to
our
clients.”
So,
why
do
we,
three
law
firms
and
a
vendor,
treat
AI
as
something
more
than
just
another
technology
tool?
Because
if
we
do
not,
we
risk
reaching
a
point,
gradually,
then
suddenly,
where
our
workflows
have
transformed
beyond
recognition
and
possibly
beyond
our
control.
Think
of
electric
vehicles
that
are
diagnosed
and
updated
remotely
and
require
specialist
equipment
to
be
fixed.
No
one
knows
what
is
happening
under
the
hood,
and
even
the
traditional
mechanic’s
role
has
become
negligible.
Our
goal
should
be
to
transform
legal
workflows
deliberately
and
consciously
—
to
retain
the
human
element
where
it
matters
most,
to
stay
competitive,
and
to
remain
in
control.
To
help
explore
what
this
balance
might
look
like,
it
is
helpful
to
consider
two
hypothetical
extremes:
Firm
X
and
Firm
Y.
Type
X
Firms
These
firms
are
all
in
when
it
comes
to
AI.
They
strive
to
deliver
high-quality
work
with
maximum
efficiency,
using
AI
to
generate
work
products
autonomously.
Their
workflows
are
powered
by
specialized
legal
AI
models,
fine-tuned
for
specific
areas
of
law
or
work
types,
and
capable
of
operating
within
standard
OCGs
agreed
upon
with
clients.
Human
involvement
is
minimal,
typically
limited
to
final
approvals
for
compliance
purposes.
In
effect,
the
legal
workflows
of
Type
X
firms
are
not
human.
Type
Y
Firms
On
the
other
hand,
Type
Y
firms
compete
based
on
human
expertise.
Their
work
products
are
crafted
by
experienced
legal
professionals,
supported
by
deep
in-house
knowledge
repositories,
best
practices,
and
top-tier
templates
and
precedents.
These
firms
embrace
technology
for
general
productivity
and
collaboration
—
summarising
meetings,
managing
actions,
and
translating
in
real
time
—
but
avoid
AI-generated
legal
outputs.
Type
Y
firms
proudly
assert
that
their
legal
work
is
entirely
human-made,
with
partners
standing
fully
behind
the
results.
Their
workflows
are,
in
effect,
human
through
and
through.
The
reality?
Neither
Type
X
nor
Type
Y
is
likely
to
thrive
long-term.
Type
X
firms
may
achieve
efficiency
but
will
drift
toward
commoditization.
Drawing
from
the
same
knowledge
pools
and
offering
similar
outputs,
they
risk
falling
into
price-based
competition
that
drives
margins
downward.
Type
Y
firms,
meanwhile,
may
face
recruitment
challenges.
The
next
generation
of
attorneys
may
be
unwilling
to
work
in
low-automation
environments,
and
clients
may
question
the
value
of
traditional
billing
models
that
ignore
technological
progress.
Instead,
we
believe
a
third
model
is
more
sustainable:
the
Type
A
Firm.
Type
A
Firms
These
firms
are
intentionally
designed
to
balance
human
expertise
with
technological
advantage.
They
integrate
AI
to
handle
low-value,
repetitive
tasks,
reduce
friction
in
daily
work,
and
augment
professionals
on
complex
matters.
They
recognize
that
the
power
of
a
legal
expert
lies
in
their
ability
to
observe,
learn,
and
solve
complex
problems
creatively,
with
the
support
of
cutting-edge
tools
and
technology.
Type
A
firms
constantly
evolve
their
strategy,
aiming
to
stay
ahead
of
the
curve
by
responsibly
adapting
to
new
technologies
while
simultaneously
attracting
and
retaining
top
talent.
They
design
their
workflows
with
human
agency
at
the
core
—
confident
that
no
matter
how
advanced
today’s
AI
becomes,
tomorrow’s
next
technology
breakthrough
could
render
it
obsolete.
So,
how
do
you
act
today
to
ensure
that
you
design
yourself,
the
human,
into
strategically
aligned
GenAI-augmented
legal
workflows?
First,
we
believe
there
are
strategies
that
firms
can
employ
now
to
balance
the
human
vs
AI
equation.
Start
by
assessing
your
firm’s
long-term
AI
vision
and
strategy.
As
per
above,
it
will
depend
on
the
type
of
firm
you
are
today
and
wish
to
be
tomorrow.
This
will
help
us
consider
a
future
with
AI,
where
we
are
unlikely
to
be
the
most
informed
or
fastest-processing
party.
Instead,
we
must
stay
in
control
by
leveraging
our
secret
sauce,
which
includes
human
qualities
such
as
the
ability
to
forge
bonds
and
relationships
with
our
clients,
being
empathetic,
and,
crucially,
our
ability
to
be
critical
thinkers.
Second,
start
taking
control
today.
Direct
GenAI
initiatives
towards
the
places
they
add
the
most
value
and
tightly
control
initiatives
where
AI
tools
might
impact
your
firm’s
crown
jewels.
Here
are
three
practical
suggestions
to
get
started.
1.
Create
systems
that
give
legal
professionals
and
AI
instant
access
to
knowledge,
i.e.,
instant
access
to
authoritative
information
in
the
proper
context.
This
win-win
should
be
a
hygiene
factor
for
modern
legal
workflows,
irrespective
of
your
long-term
strategy.
2.
Invest
in
training
that
ensures
that
legal
teams
both
have
a
deep
academic
understanding
of
GenAI
tools
and
the
way
they
leverage
statistical
models
to
generate
answers
that
are
not
guaranteed
to
be
accurate,
only
statistically
probable,
and
also
the
practical
skills
to
effectively
audit
and
add
the
necessary
level
of
human
judgment
to
the
generated
output.
This
is
generally
best
accomplished
by
prioritizing
tasks
that
are
readily
feasible
for
GenAI
today
and
have
high-value
outcomes.
These
will
typically
be
too
complex
to
automate,
yet
simple,
but
time-consuming
for
humans.
E.g.,
summarizing
differences
in
regulatory
requirements
across
two
or
three
jurisdictions.
3.
Identify
workflows
or
work
types
that
are
unique
or
high
value
to
the
firm,
especially
those
where
you
leverage
significant
in-house
IP
and
expertise.
Ringfence
these
with
strong
AI
governance.
Support
the
legal
professionals
in
these
workflows
or
work
types
with
world-class
knowledge
and
advanced
tech,
but
tightly
control
the
application
of
AI
and
the
human
audit
process
to
produce
high-quality
work
products.
The
insights
shared
by
the
co-authors
of
this
article
highlight
the
strategic
value
of
taking
a
thoughtfully
designed
approach
to
best
leverage
the
power
of
AI
technologies
towards
effective,
transformative
initiatives.
As
we
explore
the
inevitable
integration
of
AI
within
legal
workflows,
protecting
firms’
unique
knowledge
and
expertise
is
essential.
By
focusing
on
areas
where
in-house
expertise,
experience,
and
knowledge
excel
and
applying
AI
thoughtfully,
we
can
create
workflows
without
compromising
the
human
element
and
the
relationships
that
clients
value.
This
balanced
approach
allows
us
to
adapt
and
be
resilient
in
changing
times.
This
article
was
originally
published
in
the
2025
Summer
issue
of
ILTA’s
Peer
to
Peer
magazine
(https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/1538025-summer25/21?).
Carolyn
Austin
is
the
Director
of
Practice
Innovation
at
K&L
Gates,
LLP,
in
Australia.
Carolyn
leads
a
team
of
legal
practitioners
and
specialist
technicians
focused
on
creating
innovative
approaches
to
service
delivery
through
sustainable
knowledge
management,
process
improvement,
and
digital
adoption.
Sarah
Hirebet
is
the
Director
of
Knowledge
Management
at
Stradley
Ronon
Stevens
&
Young,
LLP.
Sarah
empowers
innovation
by
leveraging
what
people
know,
amplifying
this
know-how
with
technology,
and
designing
processes
that
are
more
efficient,
more
accurate,
and
more
joyful.
Gabriel
Karawani
is
a
Co-Founder
of
ClearPeople.
As
the
driving
force
behind
Atlas,
Gabriel
plays
a
pivotal
role
in
bringing
one
of
the
most
advanced
knowledge-centric
platforms
for
Microsoft
365
to
market,
underscoring
its
critical
role
in
the
business
success
of
many
organizations.
Sarah
Pullin
is
the
Global
Director
of
Knowledge
at
Baker
McKenzie.
Sarah
leads
a
function
of
knowledge
lawyers,
KM
managers,
information
and
research
teams,
global
KM
experts,
four
offshore
teams,
and
KM
systems
and
tools
in
support
of
the
firm’s
clients
and
business
strategy.