Last Friday’s session was moderated by Andrei Salajan, Director of Innovation and Legal Technology at Schoenherr, and Hélder Santos, Head of Legal Tech and Innovation at Bird & Bird, and Kyle Gribben from Matheson LLP. The discussion tackled one of the most common misconceptions in legal innovation: that digital transformation is primarily a technology problem. Instead, the conversation focused on how the real challenges, and opportunities, lie in people, incentives, culture and leadership behaviour. With contributions from Chris Williams at Stella and participants in the session, the discussion examined how law firms can move beyond simply experimenting with AI and legal technology to achieving meaningful organisational change.
From “Should We Use AI?” to “How Do We Use It Well?”
Salajan opened by observing a clear shift in the industry conversation. Until recently, the dominant questions were whether AI should be adopted and what it might be capable of. That stage has largely passed. Many firms now accept that AI is inevitable and necessary. The real challenge has become how to implement it effectively and push its capabilities further.
This shift has been accelerated by rapid advances in generative AI models. Capabilities that seemed unrealistic even months earlier are now achievable. However, while the technology is progressing at extraordinary speed, most organisations are still struggling to match that pace internally. Adoption is uneven, experimentation is fragmented and many firms lack a coherent framework for change.
Culture and Leadership: The Real Drivers of Adoption
Santos emphasised that transformation begins with behaviour – particularly leadership behaviour. In law firms, culture tends to follow the actions of partners. If partners actively use new tools and demonstrate openness to new ways of working, associates and junior lawyers are far more likely to follow. Conversely, if partners remain sceptical or disengaged, adoption stalls quickly.
This dynamic highlights a key truth about transformation in professional services: change cannot be delegated entirely to innovation teams or technology specialists. Leaders must visibly participate in the process.
Gribben expanded on this by describing the cultural differences across law firms. Each organisation has its own “soul”, shaped by hierarchy, ownership structures and professional norms. These structures influence how innovation spreads. Junior lawyers may be enthusiastic adopters of new technology, while senior partners often require clearer evidence of value and relevance to their practice.
Peer Influence and Internal Champions
Several speakers highlighted the importance of peer influence in driving change. While external experts or innovation teams may introduce new tools, lawyers are often more persuaded by colleagues who demonstrate tangible benefits in real practice.
One effective approach is to identify internal advocates, individuals within practice groups who actively experiment with technology and share their experiences. These individuals help translate innovation into practical workflows and credible examples.
However, Santos questioned whether relying solely on “champions” is sufficient. If transformation is truly organisational, it must eventually move beyond small groups of advocates to become embedded across the firm.
The Framework Challenge
A recurring theme was the difficulty of building a comprehensive transformation framework. According to Salajan, successful adoption requires several elements working simultaneously:
- foundational understanding of the technology
- practical use cases tied to legal work
- leadership support and incentives
- peer learning and collaboration
- experimentation with emerging capabilities
Many firms address these elements individually but struggle to combine them into a coordinated strategy. The complexity of the process can be overwhelming, particularly in environments where billable work takes priority.
The Business Model Barrier
One of the most significant structural obstacles discussed was the traditional law firm business model. The billable hour continues to shape incentives, leaving limited time for experimentation or process redesign.
When the existing model remains highly profitable, transformation can feel optional rather than urgent. Partners may recognise the long-term importance of innovation while still prioritising immediate client work.
Despite this tension, participants noted growing signs that the mindset is shifting. Leadership teams are increasingly willing to explore new service models, alternative pricing structures and technology-enabled delivery methods.
Generative AI as a Catalyst
Generative AI has played a crucial role in accelerating this shift. Unlike previous waves of legal technology, it has sparked widespread curiosity and enthusiasm across the profession. Lawyers who previously showed little interest in process automation or document automation are now actively exploring broader innovation opportunities.
This has created momentum that extends beyond AI itself. Interest in generative AI often leads lawyers to reconsider workflows, knowledge management and client collaboration.
Building Momentum Through Incentives
Several practical strategies for encouraging adoption were discussed. One example involved creating internal networks of AI leaders across practice groups. These individuals form teams that experiment with tools, develop use cases and share results across the firm.
Healthy competition between teams can also encourage engagement. When one group demonstrates measurable success, others are often motivated to explore similar approaches. Visibility and recognition play an important role in sustaining this momentum.
Client Collaboration
The client perspective also featured prominently in the discussion. Increasingly, clients are not only interested in how law firms use AI but also eager to collaborate on innovation.
Clients want to understand:
- which technologies firms are using
- how those tools improve service delivery
- how legal teams can work together more effectively
This openness creates opportunities for deeper partnerships. Shared platforms, client portals and collaborative workflows can strengthen relationships while improving efficiency.
Preparing for the Next Generation of Lawyers
The conversation concluded by reflecting on the implications for legal education and career development. As automation reshapes tasks such as drafting and research, law firms must reconsider how lawyers learn and develop expertise.
AI also creates opportunities for new forms of training. Simulated scenarios, interactive learning environments and AI-assisted knowledge development could fundamentally change how lawyers acquire practical experience.
Conclusion
The session reinforced a central insight: digital transformation in law is not fundamentally a technology challenge. Tools alone cannot reshape organisations. Meaningful change requires leadership engagement, cultural shifts, revised incentives and sustained collaboration.
AI may be the catalyst, but people remain the decisive factor. Firms that recognise this, and invest accordingly, will be best positioned to navigate the next phase of legal innovation.
