The legal industry grapples with AI adoption at Legalweek
At the recent Legalweek conference held at New York City’s Javits Center, artificial intelligence (AI) emerged as a central theme, captivating the attention of legal professionals. However, despite the buzz surrounding AI, many lawyers expressed skepticism about its implementation within their firms. Concerns regarding job security and inadequate training were significant barriers to the adoption of legal-tech tools.
The Conference Atmosphere
Legalweek has become an annual event that serves as a progress report on the integration of generative artificial intelligence in the legal sector. This year’s conference featured a plethora of AI “agents” marketed as digital coworkers capable of drafting, reviewing, and executing multi-step workflows that traditionally required junior associates. The booths were bustling, and the excitement was palpable, yet a more subdued reality lingered beneath the surface.
Key Concerns Among Legal Professionals
One of the most pressing questions that echoed throughout the conference was, “How do we get lawyers to use AI tools at all?” This question was raised not only by attendees but also by vendors attempting to sell their products. The hesitation among lawyers to embrace AI reflects a broader trend observed in various industries, where companies have begun to tie layoffs to AI-driven efficiency gains.
Job Security and Fear of Automation
Many legal professionals are wary of how automation might impact their job security. Emma Dowden, the Chief Operating Officer of Burges Salmon, highlighted that lawyers fear what automation could mean for their billable hours and overall job stability. The anxiety surrounding AI adoption can lead to resistance, with some partners preferring to let other practice areas test new technologies before committing themselves.
Generational Perspectives
While it is often assumed that younger lawyers would be more open to adopting new technologies, this is not always the case. Sarah Eagen, who leads learning and development at Cleary Gottlieb, shared insights from her firm’s experience with Legora, a competitor to Harvey. Despite the rollout of AI tools, many associates still perceive automation as a threat to their careers, having invested years and resources into building their legal expertise on entry-level tasks.
The Role of Training in AI Adoption
Training is a crucial factor in the successful implementation of AI tools in law firms. Ian Nelson, who runs Hotshot, emphasized that many firms do not provide adequate training for their lawyers regarding AI technologies. He noted that there is a prevalent mentality that training can wait until a firm has licensed a tool, which he argued is shortsighted. Proper training not only helps lawyers understand how to use the tools but also clarifies the risks and policies associated with them.
Importance of Contextual Training
When training does occur, it is often too narrow, focusing solely on tool-specific demonstrations without providing context about risks and the firm’s own policies. This lack of comprehensive training can lead to underutilization of AI tools, as lawyers may not feel confident in using them effectively.
Client Expectations and Market Pressures
As clients demand faster and more cost-effective legal services, law firms face increasing pressure to adapt. Dowden warned that firms risk losing clients if they do not change their habits and embrace AI technologies. Robert Clark, an in-house lawyer at the brand agency Dentsu, echoed this sentiment during a panel discussion, suggesting that firms that hesitate to adopt AI may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.
AI Maturity and Client Selection
Clark raised an important question about “AI maturity” and its potential impact on how companies select outside counsel in the near future. He expressed discomfort when firms proclaim they have appointed a chief innovation officer while simultaneously resisting investments in AI platforms. This disconnect raises concerns about the long-term viability of firms that do not prioritize technological advancement.
The Future of AI in Legal Services
As discussions progressed during the conference, a critical question began to emerge: If AI can indeed enhance the quality and efficiency of legal services, at what point does resistance to its use become a liability? Corporate lawyer Michael Pierson posed this thought-provoking question during a panel, suggesting that failing to leverage AI in daily legal practice could potentially amount to malpractice.
Embracing Change for Client Service
Pierson, who co-founded a smaller, distributed law firm that heavily relies on AI tools, emphasized the importance of exploring any technology that can lead to superior work products. The legal industry must adapt to the evolving landscape of client service, where the integration of AI could be crucial for maintaining competitiveness and delivering high-quality results.
Conclusion
The Legalweek conference highlighted the dual nature of AI adoption in the legal industry: a promising opportunity for enhanced efficiency and a source of anxiety for many professionals. As firms navigate the complexities of integrating AI technologies, addressing concerns about job security, providing adequate training, and understanding client expectations will be essential for successful implementation. The legal industry stands at a crossroads, and how it chooses to embrace AI will likely shape its future.
Note: The information presented in this article is based on observations and discussions from the Legalweek conference and reflects the current state of AI adoption in the legal industry as of March 2026.
