If you’d like to receive more content like this, join 5,000+ other lawyers and legal marketers who subscribe to my Legal Growth email newsletter here.
Over the past several months, I’ve had many conversations with law firm leaders about AI.
AI is clearly a priority for law firms in 2026. They are evaluating tools, launching pilots, forming committees, hosting demos, and determining what role these tools should play in legal work going forward.
But for all the attention AI is getting, many firms still seem to be quite early in the process. The more conversations I have, the clearer it becomes that the main challenge ahead is not deciding whether to use AI, but figuring out how to use it well.
A few things, in particular, stand out.
1. Many firms are still near the starting line
For all the focus on AI, many firms are still in the early stages.
They may have licensed one or more tools, formed a committee, and encouraged lawyers to experiment. But in many cases, meaningful day-to-day adoption is limited. The tools are available. But use is inconsistent.
That is not surprising. Law firms are complex organizations, and lawyers are not quick to change how they work simply because new software has arrived. There is a meaningful difference between experimenting with AI and integrating it into daily work, and many firms still seem to be somewhere in between.
2. Buying AI is easy. Changing behavior is much harder.
Deriving real value from AI requires much more than access. It requires judgment, training, workflow changes, better instincts about where AI can help and where it cannot, and comfort reviewing output that may look polished but still needs real scrutiny.
That is why I think this is fundamentally an implementation challenge more than a technology challenge. It is as much about change management as it is about knowledge management.
3. Time may be one of the biggest obstacles
There is another complication here that I don’t think gets enough attention: lawyers are already stretched thin.
AI has the potential to help lawyers work more efficiently. But before that happens, they have to learn how to use it well. And all of that takes time and mental bandwidth, both of which are already in short supply for lawyers.
One of the central challenges for law firms, therefore, is what I think of as the AI adoption paradox: the lawyers who would benefit most from becoming more efficient through AI are often the ones who feel too stretched to learn how to use it effectively.
That is one reason broad exhortations to “use AI more” are unlikely to get firms very far. Without practical support, clear use cases, and some room to learn, firms are likely to see patchy adoption, inconsistent habits, and a widening gap between lawyers who embrace these tools and those who do not.
4. Firms increasingly need people who can translate the technology into practical use
One related point I’ve been thinking about is that firms do not just need AI tools. Many of them need people who can help translate the technology's promise into practical use within the firm.
That is one reason I’ve been working with firms through Latitude Legal to place lawyers who have experience using AI tools effectively. They can work alongside attorneys, knowledge management teams, and others inside the firm to support adoption, improve workflows, and help lawyers use these tools more thoughtfully and effectively.
That kind of support can be especially valuable for firms that want to move forward but do not yet have enough internal capacity or practical expertise to lead the effort themselves.
5. Firms that get the most from AI will probably be the most realistic about adoption
If there is an overarching takeaway from these conversations, it is this: the real work ahead is not simply choosing tools. It is implementation.
That means being clear about what the firm wants AI to do, realistic about how difficult behavior change can be, and recognizing that adoption will require training, experimentation, supervision, and time. And it means understanding that this is as much a management and operational challenge as it is a technology initiative.
Conclusion
On a recent call with a partner who is pushing hard for AI use in his firm, we discussed—and lamented—how many lawyers seem to dabble with these tools, walk away unimpressed, and write off “the whole AI thing.” The partner made the point that this would be like a law student using Westlaw for the first time and, because he could not immediately find the perfect case, deciding never to use it again. Sounds silly, right?
But that is what is happening in many firms.
Used well, AI requires skill. It requires practice. And it requires some patience as you navigate the learning curve. Lawyers who open a tool once or twice, ask a few vague questions, get mediocre output, and conclude that it is useless are not really evaluating the technology. They are demonstrating that new tools, like any other tools, take time to learn.
That, to me, is the crux of the challenge for law firms.
Firms doing “the whole AI thing” well don’t treat AI as a magic switch but as a professional capability that has to be built.
That is harder work than many would like. It is certainly less exciting than the demos suggest. But it is probably the work that will separate firms that merely talk about AI from firms that actually learn how to use it well.
Jay Harrington is president of our agency, a published author, and nationally-recognized expert in thought-leadership marketing.
From strategic planning to writing, podcasting, video marketing, and design, Jay and his team help lawyers and law firms turn expertise into thought leadership, and thought leadership into new business. Get in touch to learn more about the consulting and coaching services we provide. You can reach Jay at jay@hcommunications.biz.