Thomas Reuters published a report recently that said 77% of legal professionals believe AI is a force for good for the profession and 77% said it is likely to be transformative.
Yet when I reflect on my conversations with general counsels over the past few months (and I have met over 100 GCs) only a small number have implemented AI-powered legal technology or are on a pathway to doing so in 2025.
This shouldn’t be a surprise, our industry is conservative by nature and values accuracy and certainty over the promise of greater efficiency. But should there be more urgency if adopting AI-powered technology can significantly enhance productivity, and if so, what are the roadblocks that are getting in the way?
- Don’t believe the hype
For some this is because they have been under-whelmed by previous technology rollouts. For others, they just can’t see how ChatGT etc can help solve their biggest problems, which are often bespoke, nuanced and require deep situational awareness.
2. The risk is too great
Even if AI can get to 85% of a solution, if in using it you embed a fatal flaw in a document (for example), the reputational damage could be enormous. At least this is the concern.
A lot of lawyers believe they are better off waiting for others to lead the way (and work out any of the bugs). The risk, reward ratio doesn’t stack up.
3. Lower hanging fruit
For others, matter management, contract automation or contract management are higher priorities.
Their emphasis is on improving how their team responds to and manages legal matters. This can be more about process, operations and culture rather than technology enablers.
4. The sunk cost fallacy
Many teams have already embedded technology, often expending political capital, time and energy in the process. The thought of starting that process again can be fatiguing.
This is especially tough if it’s hard to switch suppliers (get out of contracts or get your data back), re-engage internal IT and procurement teams, or to create the business case for additional budget.
5. Lack of business engagement
Some teams are lucky enough to have tech savvy lawyers who can explore new technologies on the side of their desk or legal operations professionals who have technology as part of their remit. For other teams, leaders need to tread more carefully, making sure not to disrupt team morale with time consuming changes.
Legal can also be the organisational poor cousins, seen as a low priority for new technology adoption or asked to adopt broader organisational technology that might not be fit for purpose.
It can be particularly challenging for international corporations which value uniformity and consistency over decentalised, bespoke technology solutions.
6. Don’t have time
For some general counsels, not having the time is code for not seeing legal AI as a priority.
For most GCs, however, they quite literally don’t have the time. Legal teams typically work some of the longest hours in most organisations. How do you take people off line when the team is already stretched? Where do you start anyway? There are over 160 legal technology vendors offering legal technology solutions to the Australian market.
Where to in 2025
It’s unlikely that inhouse legal teams will escape the inevitable shift to AI-powered legal solutions. If 2025 is not the year to adopt, it should certainly be the year to explore.
In our business, we are getting a lot of inquiries for technology lawyers who support inhouse teams as secondees or legal consultants. This makes a lot of sense for small to medium-sized legal teams, but also for large teams who want to support their legal operations professionals with deep legal AI expertise that can map out a pathway to adoption..
It will be interesting to observe how this need grows in 2025.
