{"id":124326,"date":"2025-06-26T13:02:36","date_gmt":"2025-06-26T21:02:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/26\/the-ai-strategy-potluck-law-firms-showing-up-empty-handed-hungry-and-weirdly-proud-of-it\/"},"modified":"2025-06-26T13:02:36","modified_gmt":"2025-06-26T21:02:36","slug":"the-ai-strategy-potluck-law-firms-showing-up-empty-handed-hungry-and-weirdly-proud-of-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/06\/26\/the-ai-strategy-potluck-law-firms-showing-up-empty-handed-hungry-and-weirdly-proud-of-it\/","title":{"rendered":"The AI Strategy Potluck: Law Firms Showing Up Empty-Handed, Hungry, And Weirdly Proud Of It"},"content":{"rendered":"

Everyone\u2019s talking about AI in legal \u2014 for better<\/a> or worse<\/a> \u2014 and lawyers are mostly using some mix of AI tools in some form or another occasionally. But how many firms out there have a strategy beyond, \u201cI dunno, you all figure it out\u201d? It seems the answer is \u201cnot many,\u201d which is unfortunate because having a strategy<\/em> is far more important than whether or not anyone\u2019s using it. <\/p>\n

The Thomson Reuters \u201cFuture of Professionals\u201d report<\/a> just dropped and one stat standing out among its insights is that organizations with a visible AI strategy are not only twice as likely<\/em> to report growth, they\u2019re also 3.5 times more likely<\/em> to see actual, tangible benefits from AI adoption.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

And yet, of a profession that fancies itself a bunch of 4D chess players, only 22 percent of organizations have such a plan. Come on! This isn\u2019t like the nation\u2019s Iran policy\u2026 you actually need to do some strategic planning for this one.<\/p>\n

While headlines have focused on the gap between the 31 percent with no plans for adoption and everyone else, the more pressing concern might be the 43 percent just winging it. That 31 percent may be left behind while they fax their Word Perfect drafts to co-counsel, but they\u2019ll be relatively harmless in their Faraday cage of sadness. The 43 percent are going to reap fewer of the benefits while taking on a whole lot of the risk. Sort of \u201cmalpractice slow motion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Or, if it\u2019s not malpractice, it\u2019s at least leaving money on the table. Thomson Reuters estimates AI will save professionals five hours a week \u2014 or nearly 240 hours per year \u2014 which they estimate as about $19,000 per professional annually. That scales up to about $32 billion in unlocked capacity across the industry. But that industry estimate assumes an hourly rate of less than a hundred (because it\u2019s mixed to include the whole range of legal professionals). Assuming lawyers think their time is more valuable \u2014 and they definitely think that \u2014 and that there\u2019s five hours a week worth of work that a junior associate can offload to AI, that\u2019s like $150K in time they can be forced to toil on other projects. They can\u2019t double bill time of course, but adopt some fixed fee projects to capture the value of saved time<\/a> and that\u2019s money waiting to be grabbed BY YOU.<\/p>\n

One of the biggest stumbling blocks in legal tech is adoption. Many firms have savvy tech professionals who can go out and buy the right products, but they\u2019re only valuable if lawyers know they exist. That\u2019s where a good strategy would come in. The good news is that roughly 96 percent of respondents have a grasp that AI exists. The bad news is that most lawyers are finding out about AI by randomly hunting and pecking on their own:<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

To all of you learning about AI strategy by voluntarily coming to Above the Law right now\u2026 welcome! Please enjoy your stay. Learn about federal chewing gum caselaw<\/a> while you\u2019re here. <\/p>\n

This is Underpants Gnome territory:<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The question for law firms isn\u2019t \u201cShould we adopt AI?\u201d That ship\u2019s left the harbor, and it\u2019s firing on your position. The question is how to harness the tech, leverage the firm\u2019s years of intellectual capital, avoid pitfalls, protect client data, and turn all that free time into new revenue.<\/p>\n

Thankfully for firms, most of your competitors are lagging behind too so there\u2019s plenty of time to get ahead on this. Those that don\u2019t, as the report concludes, \u201cwill find themselves floundering and ultimately failing to maintain a competitive advantage or deliver value to their businesses or clients.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post The AI Strategy Potluck: Law Firms Showing Up Empty-Handed, Hungry, And Weirdly Proud Of It<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Everyone\u2019s talking about AI in legal \u2014 for better<\/a> or worse<\/a> \u2014 and lawyers are mostly using some mix of AI tools in some form or another occasionally. But how many firms out there have a strategy beyond, \u201cI dunno, you all figure it out\u201d? It seems the answer is \u201cnot many,\u201d which is unfortunate because having a strategy<\/em> is far more important than whether or not anyone\u2019s using it. <\/p>\n

The Thomson Reuters \u201cFuture of Professionals\u201d report<\/a> just dropped and one stat standing out among its insights is that organizations with a visible AI strategy are not only twice as likely<\/em> to report growth, they\u2019re also 3.5 times more likely<\/em> to see actual, tangible benefits from AI adoption.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

And yet, of a profession that fancies itself a bunch of 4D chess players, only 22 percent of organizations have such a plan. Come on! This isn\u2019t like the nation\u2019s Iran policy\u2026 you actually need to do some strategic planning for this one.<\/p>\n

While headlines have focused on the gap between the 31 percent with no plans for adoption and everyone else, the more pressing concern might be the 43 percent just winging it. That 31 percent may be left behind while they fax their Word Perfect drafts to co-counsel, but they\u2019ll be relatively harmless in their Faraday cage of sadness. The 43 percent are going to reap fewer of the benefits while taking on a whole lot of the risk. Sort of \u201cmalpractice slow motion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Or, if it\u2019s not malpractice, it\u2019s at least leaving money on the table. Thomson Reuters estimates AI will save professionals five hours a week \u2014 or nearly 240 hours per year \u2014 which they estimate as about $19,000 per professional annually. That scales up to about $32 billion in unlocked capacity across the industry. But that industry estimate assumes an hourly rate of less than a hundred (because it\u2019s mixed to include the whole range of legal professionals). Assuming lawyers think their time is more valuable \u2014 and they definitely think that \u2014 and that there\u2019s five hours a week worth of work that a junior associate can offload to AI, that\u2019s like $150K in time they can be forced to toil on other projects. They can\u2019t double bill time of course, but adopt some fixed fee projects to capture the value of saved time<\/a> and that\u2019s money waiting to be grabbed BY YOU.<\/p>\n

One of the biggest stumbling blocks in legal tech is adoption. Many firms have savvy tech professionals who can go out and buy the right products, but they\u2019re only valuable if lawyers know they exist. That\u2019s where a good strategy would come in. The good news is that roughly 96 percent of respondents have a grasp that AI exists. The bad news is that most lawyers are finding out about AI by randomly hunting and pecking on their own:<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

To all of you learning about AI strategy by voluntarily coming to Above the Law right now\u2026 welcome! Please enjoy your stay. Learn about federal chewing gum caselaw<\/a> while you\u2019re here. <\/p>\n

This is Underpants Gnome territory:<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The question for law firms isn\u2019t \u201cShould we adopt AI?\u201d That ship\u2019s left the harbor, and it\u2019s firing on your position. The question is how to harness the tech, leverage the firm\u2019s years of intellectual capital, avoid pitfalls, protect client data, and turn all that free time into new revenue.<\/p>\n

Thankfully for firms, most of your competitors are lagging behind too so there\u2019s plenty of time to get ahead on this. Those that don\u2019t, as the report concludes, \u201cwill find themselves floundering and ultimately failing to maintain a competitive advantage or deliver value to their businesses or clients.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Everyone\u2019s talking about AI in legal \u2014 for better or worse \u2014 and lawyers are mostly using some mix of AI tools in some form or another occasionally. But how many firms out there have a strategy beyond, \u201cI dunno, you all figure it out\u201d? It seems the answer is \u201cnot many,\u201d which is unfortunate […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":124278,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124326","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/Headshot-300x200-x2QeZz.jpeg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124326","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=124326"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124326\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/124278"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124326"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124326"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124326"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}