Wednesday’s live session with Sophiya Volkova, Account Director EMEA at eBrevia, an AI-powered contract analysis software. She explored a central tension in legal innovation, while AI and legal technology promise greater efficiency and streamlined delivery, their real-world impact on transaction timelines, cost structures, and law firm economics remains complex and often uneven. Drawing on experience across legal tech, consulting, and practice, Volkova and participants examined whether AI is genuinely accelerating transactions or, in practice, introducing new layers of friction through integration challenges, change management demands, and shifting commercial models.
From Adoption to Integration
Volkova outlined the evolution of legal tech adoption, noting that the COVID-19 period marked a peak in rapid uptake. Firms invested heavily in tools such as e-signatures, contract automation, and data extraction. However, many of these solutions now sit in silos, lacking integration and creating inefficiencies rather than resolving them.
The current wave of generative AI has intensified this pattern. Firms often acquire AI tools without clearly defined use cases or requirements. The result is a growing gap between acquisition and effective deployment.
The Change Management Challenge
A consistent theme throughout the discussion was that technology alone does not deliver value; adoption does. Volkova emphasised that change management is often the critical point of failure. Successful implementation requires a structured approach, including the appointment of champions within practice areas, the embedding of tools into daily workflows, and the establishment of consistent communication and feedback mechanisms.
Mid-level lawyers were identified as particularly important to this process, given their close involvement in execution and operational detail. However, the billable hour model presents a structural barrier, as time spent exploring or implementing new technology is typically non-billable, discouraging engagement and slowing adoption.
Efficiency vs Complexity in M&A
In transactional work, particularly M&A, AI shows the greatest promise in high-volume, lower-complexity tasks such as due diligence. Here, tools can deliver measurable time savings and improved accuracy.
Yet Volkova cautioned against overgeneralisation. Not all legal problems benefit equally from AI. For highly bespoke or complex contracts, efficiency gains may be limited, and manual expertise remains essential.
The Cost Paradox
A central debate focused on whether AI-driven efficiencies are translating into cost savings for clients. While clients increasingly expect reduced fees as automation lowers manual effort, law firms continue to face rising costs associated with technology investment, training, and the expansion of internal innovation teams.
At the same time, certain workstreams, particularly document review, have historically been low-margin or even loss-leading. Andy noted that AI may allow firms to transform these areas into profitable services, raising the question of whether efficiency gains should be passed on to clients or retained within the firm. Ron reinforced the client perspective, highlighting that although AI adoption is expected, tangible cost reductions are not yet widely visible.
Market Dynamics and Competition
The discussion also examined competitive pressures from:
- Alternative legal service providers (ALSPs)
- The Big Four
- Smaller, cost-efficient firms
While price is a catalyst, participants agreed that clients ultimately prioritise certainty, quality, and risk management. Law firms retain an advantage in high-stakes matters, where assurance and expertise outweigh cost considerations.
Speed as a Premium Offering
An important counterpoint emerged: AI may not only reduce costs but also enable faster delivery. In time-sensitive transactions, clients may be willing to pay a premium for speed and accuracy. This reframes AI as a value enhancer rather than purely a cost-saving tool.
Cultural and Structural Barriers
Resistance to change remains a persistent challenge. Although lawyers are generally open to innovation, they often lack the time and capacity to experiment with new tools. Effective implementation, therefore, depends on strong internal leadership, clear authority for innovation teams, alignment between legal and non-legal functions, and an understanding that innovation is a long-term investment rather than an immediate source of profit.
In Summary
AI is not inherently increasing transaction time, but neither is it a guaranteed accelerator. Its impact depends on integration, adoption, and alignment with business models. The real challenge lies not in the technology itself, but in reshaping workflows, incentives, and firm structures to unlock its value.
