Firms are struggling with robust AI adoption. If it wasn’t bad enough before, firms are now facing more and more client pressure to do something with AI. Anything. And that can lead to even greater adoption problems. But the solution may be as simple as avoiding the classic perish for lack of knowledge trap.

I attended an interesting panel discussion at the ILTA EVOLVE conference that faced head on the problems many firms are having with GenAI and client pressures. The presentation was entitled From Hype to FOMO to Fully Funded: Building a Defensible AI Investment Plan and Roadmap. The panelists were Dan Paquette of the consulting firm Kraft Kennedy, James Wang, the cofounder of legal tech company Postilize, Chad Ergun, CIO of the Womble law firm, and Kristen Baylis, Technology Counsel of the Orrick law firm. Nice mix of consultants, a vendo,r and those who actually work in a law firm.

Client AI Demands

Baylis and Ergun identified an important trend. Instead of pressure to adopt AI coming from inside law firms or from competition, it’s now coming from clients. Clients who are saying if you don’t adopt AI in months or even weeks, we are going to take our business someplace else.

The reaction of many firms is panic. Knee-jerk buying of AI products, any AI products to demonstrate to the clients that they have AI. They buy without thinking what they need AI for in their practice. They don’t understand what the client really wants. They don’t know enough to know what AI can do and what it can’t. They don’t know how to integrate into their existing systems or what problem they want to solve. Or what goals they want to achieve with it.

It’s a “let’s just placate the client approach.”

And client expectations are often unreasonable. They see AI being applied in apps they use in everyday life seamlessly and expect their law firms to be able to come up with the same thing. Today, not tomorrow.

A Hot Mess

The result is predictably disaster. The firm spends a bunch of money to get something that no one understands, and no one uses. And it doesn’t take most clients long to figure it out, so they aren’t happy either.

It’s a problem further compounded by the unrealistic expectations of the client. So even if the firm gets AI that works well for them, it’s not enough. The clients, themselves, often don’t know what AI can and can’t do or how it can help their lawyers. They too don’t know what their goals are. Lower fees? Better work product? Fewer lawyers working on files? It’s show us you have AI, instead of we want you to employ AI to do certain defined things in our interest.

Add to all this the fact that firms may have multiple clients making inconsistent or even conflicting demands. In the typical firm, this means the partner in charge of each client marches straight to the managing partner’s office and demands the firm get the AI that the client thinks they want even if that doesn’t integrate with what the firm already has. More expense, more tools that don’t work. More frustration with AI, the managing partner, and the client. It’s a hot mess.

There Is a Solution

Midway into the discussion, Baylis made an interesting point. Firms need to take the time to educate their lawyers and legal professionals, particularly the decision makers and, I would add, the rainmakers, about the fundamentals of AI. Things like how it works. What it can do. How it can be used. Her point: this will enable the lawyers to have intelligent discussions with their clients when faced with their AI demands.

But I would go further. Not only could this kind of education reduce the chances of things like hallucinations, but it would also enable the lawyers to be the leader in the client relationship. To be able to say to client, that’s a good idea you have for us to adopt AI, now let’s talk about what you want to achieve with it. What problems you want to address. And here’s what tools we are using, and how they could be used to solve your problem. That’s a whole lot better start than buying AI to say we have it.

Of course, to get there, the firm must ask itself the same hard questions about how AI fits into their own needs and goals. And to do that, firms need to themselves drill down strategically and ask where they want to go. As Ergun pointed out: firms need to ask themselves before buying AI, what is their vision for the next 12-18 months and how will AI help them get there. As one of the PowerPoint screens of the panel put it, “AI starts with business strategy.”

But You Have to Get There, First

Only by doing this internal education and introspection can firms then pivot to select the right AI for themselves, meet legitimate client demands, and sort through the hype of many vendors that are raising unrealistic expectations. Zach Abramowitz talked about the same thing in his keynote at this very conference which I reported: too many lawyers really don’t understand GenAI and therefore can’t use it effectively. You have to start with really understanding AI. It begins with education. Real education.

But there is one more thing that Baylis mentioned. Often lawyers depend on the administrative or business side of firms to make AI recommendations. So, the lawyers by and large don’t attend conferences like EVOLVE. They send their IT or information folks to report back on what’s going on.

That’s all well and good. But it assumes these administrative and business side folks understand the practice of law. All too often, says Baylis, they don’t. And when they don’t, they “can’t isolate what they need to really solve,” as she put it. Again, it’s education.

And by the way, it would help if vendors would take time to do the same. So many don’t understand what lawyers do or their business model. Why don’t lawyers come to meetings like EVOLVE, for example? The law firm business model is based on time spent and billed on client matters. The billable hour is the highest economic priority. You can like it or hate it but it’s economic reality. Vendors often don’t get it. They don’t get the pressures on lawyers. They don’t get the pain points.

Education is the Key

It all starts with education. It’s not always fun or sexy. It’s hard work. It takes commitment by the firm, its lawyers, its business side, and vendors to walk in each other’s shoes. But for those that make the commitment, the rewards in the new world of AI will be great. Happy clients. More work. Thriving with an abundance of knowledge.

And empowering lawyers to do something they pride themselves on: cutting through bullshit for the good of their clients.

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.

The post Dealing With AI Pressures: Thriving With An Abundance Of Knowledge appeared first on Above the Law.