Breaking From the Herd: Properly Embedding AI

0:05 – Michael Gibeault

Welcome to TCDI Talks, where we highlight the people and ideas driving innovation in legal services and technology. I’m your host, Michael Gibeault, and today we’re talking about a question that may make a few legal technology buyers shift in their chairs: are firms choosing AI because it’s right for them or because everyone else seems to be choosing it?

In the legal profession, independence of thought is a point of pride, so lawyers scrutinize and challenge assumptions and build well-constructed arguments. But as my colleague, Andy Edler, argues in his recent article, when it comes to AI and legal technology selection, some organizations may be replacing rigor with reputation and strategy with safety in numbers.

Andy’s the Vice President of Legal Services for TCDI in the UK and brings more than 20 years of experience helping organizations transform operations and apply technology in practical, business-focused ways. Thanks for joining us today, Andy.

1:13 – Andy Edler

Thanks, Michael. Great to be here.

1:15 – Michael Gibeault

Yeah, I’m looking forward to it. So, you open the article with a real contradiction: lawyers are trained to challenge assumptions, but when it comes to AI selection, many seem to be following the herd. What made that pattern really stand out to you?

1:33 – Andy Edler

Yeah, I think there’s a clear distinction between the practice of law and the business of law. And it strikes me that the selections that are being made for legal technology tools are following a distinct path.

I’ll avoid the two obvious things. But there are two market-leading organizations who are winning a lot of work, and a lot of law firms are signing up for one or the other of these two. And I guess my question is, is that true independence or are they just, as you said in the opening comments, merely following the pack? The point around being safety in numbers.

Are they doing a rigorous evaluation of what they need as an organization? What’s going to futureproof the organization? Or are they merely being seduced by the marketing budgets?

2:26 – Michael Gibeault

So, Andy, you talked about safety in numbers. So, why do you think the mindset has become so powerful today in legal technology decisions with, you know, safety in numbers?

2:39 – Andy Edler

Well, I’m not going be the first person to say this, but I think the lawyers are typically quite risk averse. And given the number of other firms, the number of firms who are signing up to some of these large AI platforms, they’re taking that as their point of reference.

No one’s going to get fired for buying X, or nobody’s going to get fired for buying Y. No one’s going to break with the pack. No one’s going to do something that is perceived to be a risk. So, therefore, that’s exactly what they’ve done.

Natural risk aversion is leading to those decisions. “Well, if it’s good enough for organization X, it must be good enough for me. I don’t want to stand out from the crowd.”

3:18 – Michael Gibeault

You describe the current legal AI market as something of a “gold rush,” with big marketing budgets, celebrity campaigns and stadium level visibility. What is the risk when the hype gets ahead of actual business need?

3:34 – Andy Edler

Well, I think it will inevitably settle down. I mean, the point around “gold rush” is that there doesn’t seem to be a week goes by. And I’ve said this many times, a week is a long time in AI, certainly in legal technology. Barely a week goes by without an announcement of another firm announcing another implementation, or another POC, with another platform.

And that has been somewhat unprecedented in legal technology. The market’s been quiet. The market’s, dare I say, had even been benign for 10 or 15 years with a gradual but not a dramatic level of innovation. But, you know, to your other point, the risk for me is that the evaluation of these technologies is not being done properly.

It’s merely saying, “Well, if organization X has it, I have to have it too,” without really thinking through what the business need might be. Why are we buying it? Where’s our return on investment coming from? How are we going to change the way we work? How are we going to become more profitable? How are we going to hire for the future?

And these decisions seem to be being made very, very quickly. And I’m challenging whether these firms are really thinking through those different points before they make a selection for a vendor.

The risk is that the platforms don’t get rolled out. The risk is that they are used by a small, discrete user group, or enthusiasts or champions of the technology. But they never really become embedded within the enterprise, and the benefits, or the perceived benefits, are never really realized.

I’ve seen this throughout my career in any number of different software applications. And I mentioned this in my article, old habits do die hard. People do the things that they’ve always done. People do fear change, and I think that’s probably prevalent in the legal profession more than any other.

And I think there is a danger that organizations just aren’t going to reap the reward without really thinking through their business case really, really thoroughly. And setting short, medium and long-term objectives for it.

5:34 – Michael Gibeault

Well, let’s talk about what better evaluation actually looks like. When a firm is considering an AI platform, what should happen before anyone gets dazzled by a demo?

5:46 – Andy Edler

That’s a great question. I think I’ve referenced the same point I made earlier.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s GenAI. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the new shiny technology, whatever that might be, “innovation” or whichever adjective we want to use to describe the technology. This problem has persisted, or this challenge has persisted, for decades in terms of implementing different technology.

You know, I’m old enough to remember when CRM systems were being implemented, and people were implementing them and expecting their sales to quadruple overnight. And of course, they never did, because they had to change the way they worked. They had to do things fundamentally differently. They had to understand the data that was inside there. They had to be rigorous in their sales methodologies in order to reap the benefit of it.

GenAI is no different at all. So, my advice to firms in making a selection is, and I, you know, I’m sure some are doing this, is absolutely go back to the drawing board and say why are you implementing this technology. What are the 2 or 3 main objectives that you wish to achieve in the short to medium-term from implementing this technology?

If it’s merely to run with the pack, if it’s merely for marketing purposes, that’s okay. And you’re going to achieve that in the short-term. But if it’s about genuine business transformation, if it’s about differentiating your law firm or improving the legal function within your organization, then come up with those more hard-edged benefits.

Come up with clear metrics about what success looks like and measure it over time. Make sure that the technology, or the implementation of the technology, is done rigorously. Make sure that people within the organization have received the training. Make sure the communication is absolutely clear about “this is the way you’re going to work.”

These are some of the fundamentals that I feel, given the speed of implementation, are perhaps being overlooked. And as we’ve said before, the benefits of that don’t get realized as a consequence.

7:39 – Michael Gibeault

So, Andy, for firms that are willing to look beyond the biggest names that are out there today, what are the signs that a, you know, a challenger platform is genuinely credible and enterprise-ready?

7:52 – Andy Edler

I think it comes back to the fundamentals around procurement. It’s really being rigorous in understanding what’s available in the marketplace and taking the time to see what’s available.

I’ve looked at a lot of platforms in the last 2 to 3 years, and, you know, some are good and some are bad. Some of them are enterprise-ready for certain, and some of them aren’t. But they’re developing.

And I think, again, it comes back to that fundamental of set out what that criteria might actually be. Ultimately, what you’re seeking to achieve. But there’s no lack of information available to prospective buyers of the technology. And again, my perception of this, or even dare I say, my advice is just go a little deeper.

Be very, very rigorous in understanding what’s available in the marketplace. The information’s there. And then move on from that and test that technology. Set that criteria, set the expectation, understand what’s different from what you’re doing today, and then test the technology. All of these organizations will be very willing to do a proof of concept to prove the value in their product.

Some will be good. Some will be bad. Some will fail. Some will thrive. But that’s the important part of the exercise. Pick five. Don’t pick two.

9:12 – Michael Gibeault

So, along those same lines, Andy, with proof of concepts. So, a lot of them look very promising at first but fail to turn into meaningful organization-wide adoption. Why is that?

9:24 – Andy Edler

Yeah, I think the responsibility sits both with the customer and the vendor in that regard. I think it’s the responsibility of the vendor to truly understand the problem statement, or truly understand the requirements of the organization, of the client, as part of their sales process. I think that’s absolutely critical.

Just simply “plugging and playing” is not the solution whatsoever. It’s understanding where the organization is, how it wants to transform, how it’s going to measure performance, how it’s going to measure success over time and understand those pain points so it’s able to assist along the way. I think it’s being available to the client all of the time to hold the hand. These are new ways of working.

And there is a degree of nervousness, that risk aversion that we’ve talked about a lot with organizations. And I think it’s incumbent upon the vendors of the technology platforms to take them on that journey.

On the customer side, I think it’s the same thing, but in reverse. Be very, very clear about what your expectations are. What you’re setting out to achieve, what your success criteria looks like, how you’re going to measure that and work with the vendor to achieve that. Because if you work in isolation, then you’re going to end up in a different place. And to become enterprise, I think these things need to be done in a staged way.

There are endless examples of failures where an organization has sought to roll out a large technology transformation over the period of six months, and it’s never really been captured. People, as I’ve said before, carry on doing what they’ve always done.

So, you need a real, genuinely well thought through program of change management in order for that to stick.

11:04 – Michael Gibeault

Andy, you end the article with three big questions: are we choosing this because it’s right for us or because it’s popular? Are we paying for capability or reputation? And are we leading or just following? So, what do you hope legal leaders do differently after asking those questions?

11:26 – Andy Edler

The short answer to that is, I hope they make the right choices for the right platforms for their organization.

One size does not fit all, that is for sure. And it’s applying that rigor that we’ve talked to throughout the, throughout the discussion. You know, I hope firms, I hope the legal departments within larger organizations and legal departments within smaller organizations, clearly understand what their future looks like with the use of this technology, because it genuinely is transformational.

I hope they make the selection based on what those requirements might be. I hope that they look beyond the bright lights of marketing, the movie stars who are promoting them or, you know, all of the other, the bright lights that come with that. And they say, “what is the right platform for me?”

It might be that those large platforms are the right platforms for them. But again, apply the rigor. Look beyond the bold statements. Look beyond the “where the pack are going,” and make that evaluation. Because there are some fantastic alternative platforms in the market that will derive huge amounts of benefit for the long-term for organizations.

12:38 – Michael Gibeault

Well, Andy, thanks so much for joining us and sharing your perspective today. One of the biggest takeaways for me is that legal teams already have the skills they need to make better AI decisions. They know how to challenge assumptions, evaluate evidence, and ask sharper questions.

The opportunity now is to bring that same discipline to technology selection. And I think your point really stands out: competitive advantage does not come from doing what everyone else is doing. It comes from knowing what your business actually needs by evaluating the options rigorously. You’ll gain confidence to break away from the herd when the better answer may be found someplace else.

So, for our listeners, if you’d like to keep up with what’s next at TCDI, visit TCDI.com or connect with us on LinkedIn. Thanks again, Andy, for joining us, and we’ll see you next time on TCDI Talks.

13:38 – Andy Edler

Thank you Michael, it’s been a pleasure.