Driving AI Adoption at Top Law Firms: Candid Insights from Innovation Leaders

In an industry known for tradition and caution, generative AI is rapidly transforming the legal profession. While the promise of great efficiency is compelling, concerns around AI ethics, data security, billable hours, and hallucinations persist across many law firms. This tension between innovation and resistance is playing out in real-time—and at the center of it are Chief Innovation Officers and Chief Information Officers, tasked with guiding law firms through this fast-evolving landscape.

These innovation leaders are responsible for evaluating the risks and benefits of new technology, deciding which tools are worth exploring, testing, and potentially deploying to attorneys across a firm. 

It’s no small feat.

They must align innovation strategy with firm economics, coordinate closely with leadership, assess use cases at both the firmwide and practice-group levels, evaluate vendor offerings and security protocols, manage pilot programs, obtain attorney buy-in, and help assess ROI.

To better understand the internal dynamics behind AI adoption at some of the top law firms, we spoke directly with innovation leaders from Blank Rome LLP, Fisher Phillips LLP, Honigman LLP, and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

At Blank Rome LLP, AI was a central focus at the firm’s most recent partner retreat, according to Chief Innovation & Value Officer Ashton Batchelor and Chief Information Officer Frank Spadafino. Attorneys had the opportunity to experiment with AI tools in a low-stakes environment and heard directly from the founder of a leading generative AI platform.

Blank Rome also operates an internal Innovation Lab dedicated to evaluating generative AI tools. Last year, the Lab conducted pilot programs with four AI tools, enlisting 250 of its attorneys in the process. The firm continues to reinforce education and adoption through initiatives like “AI Saturdays,” practice-group-specific AI meetings, and private AI learning sessions.

Fisher Phillips has long been on the cutting-edge of AI testing and adoption. According to Evan Shenkman, the firm’s Chief Knowledge and Innovation Officer, Fisher Phillips was involved in the early design and testing of CoCounsel and became its first law firm customer. The firm also holds the distinction of being the first law firm client for both Hebbia and Trellis AI.

But the journey from vendor pitch to firmwide deployment is far from simple. It’s a deliberate, strategic process requiring deep use-case analysis, internal buy-in, security vetting, robust pilot testing, and thoughtful implementation.

Esther Bowers, Chief Practice Innovation Officer at Honigman LLP, noted that not all pilots make it through that process. “The pilots that succeed,” she explained, “are the ones backed by strong change management, clear communication about the ‘why,’ and use cases that are firmly rooted in how lawyers actually work.”

For Bowers, successful adoption doesn’t come from a single announcement. “Attorneys often need to hear about something seven times before it sticks,” she said, emphasizing the importance of clear, consistent messaging delivered across multiple channels.

Andrew Johnson, Chief Information Officer at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, highlighted the importance of close collaboration between AI innovation teams and practice group leadership. Timing, he added, is also a critical factor. “A vendor may have an outstanding product or service,” Johnson remarked, “but it may just be the wrong time for the firm.”

Shenkman added that the most important factor is simple: “The absolute most important thing is to have a great GenAI tool that adds a ton of value, and is easy to use.”

When asked what advice they would give legal tech vendors, these innovation leaders were candid: do your homework—and respect the process.

Blank Rome’s Batchelor and Spadafino noted that “broad solicitations” and direct pitches to attorneys are “rarely effective.” The most successful vendors, they emphasized, are those who “respect the procurement and onboarding process,” making it easier for the innovation team to properly evaluate the tool.

Bowers of Honigman LLP echoed this sentiment, expressing a desire for legal tech vendors to invest more time in understanding the firm’s internal procurement procedures, decision-making dynamics, and key stakeholders.

But even a deep understanding of firm dynamics isn’t enough if a vendor cannot meet essential security and governance standards. Shenkman of Fisher Phillips was direct: failure to meet those requirements is a dealbreaker. “We can’t proceed—and most law firms won’t either,” he stated.

The insights below provide a rare window into how law firm innovation leaders are driving change and navigating the real-world challenges of AI adoption in the legal industry:

  1. What is your firm’s current approach to adopting AI? Are there any specific tools or use cases you’re most excited about? 

Similar to others, we are interested in automating rote, low-risk tasks while freeing attorneys and policy professionals to work on more high-level client issues. The perception of value and the relative risk and reward of AI is not fixed across the industry, however, so we encourage dialogue with clients.

Our firm takes a phased, practice-informed approach to adopting AI, recognizing that groups have different needs and are at varying levels of readiness—from those that have systematized AI into their workflows to others just beginning to explore its potential. We’re supporting all practices with training, governance, and strategic guidance to ensure responsible and meaningful adoption. 

What excites us most isn’t a single tool, but the evolution toward agentic AI—systems that can reason, automate complex legal tasks, and eventually work proactively within the flow of legal work. We’re already seeing promising use cases in contract review, redlining, and approval routing, where AI can replicate demonstrated processes without coding or complicated setup. This is an inflection point where thoughtful integration of AI has the potential to reshape not just efficiency, but the entire model of legal service delivery.

Blank Rome’s AI adoption is driven by strong collaboration between business teams and attorneys, focusing on maximizing client value and optimizing operations in a responsible and scalable way. Last year, the firm’s Innovation Lab focused exclusively on evaluation of generative AI. The Lab vetted leading AI applications for law firms through four large-scale pilots involving over 250 lawyers and business professionals, focused on defining use cases and putting the capabilities of each application to the test. The pilots succeeded due to a use-case-first approach, empowering attorneys to integrate AI practically into their practices. Following the pilots, the firm adopted three AI technologies for long-term study and workflow integration. As we enter the next phase, we look forward to evolving from prompt-based AI interactions to advanced workflow integration through agentic AI and creation of practice-specific playbooks.

Since late 2022, our firm has been committed to leveraging GenAI to deliver higher-quality legal work more efficiently for our clients. We moved quickly—not only to get our attorneys directly engaged with the technology, but also to help shape the responsible development of leading GenAI tools. We collaborated with Casetext to help design and test CoCounsel, and became the first firm in the world to deploy it. We then became the first law firm customer of both Hebbia and TrellisAI, as well as a design partner and first customer of Verbit’s GenAI-powered LegalVisor. With over two years of hands-on experience designing and applying GenAI in legal practice, our approach remains the same: keep our attorneys at the forefront of innovation, partner with vendors to help deploy the best new products, and turn that advantage into smarter, faster, and more effective service for our clients.

  1. When evaluating AI tools, what criteria matter most to your team? 

The questions we must answer affirmatively before adopting any tool are: 1) Based on the sensitivity of the data processed by this tool, do we trust the related security controls? 2) Do we understand how the tool works and can we conceive of appropriate steps to monitor accuracy and completeness? 3) Can we articulate the benefits of this tool to internal and external stakeholders?

The top criteria that tend to matter most to our firm include: 1) platform security and maintaining the integrity of our client’s data, which is paramount in any legal technology decision; 2) whether the AI has been trained on legal precedents and grounded in case law to minimize the risk of hallucinations and ensure reliable outputs; 3) the ability to demonstrate a clear business case for procurement, showing how the tool will drive efficiency, support better outcomes, and deliver measurable value to the practice and our clients; and 4) ease of use and low barriers to adoption—specifically, how intuitive the interface is and whether the tool can integrate seamlessly into existing workflows and platforms. We look for solutions that not only meet our technical and ethical standards but also support practical, real-world use by our lawyers and teams.

AI applications must create measurable value to our attorneys and clients by streamlining processes or improving outcomes. We do not pursue new technology solely for its own sake. Blank Rome has an established and carefully considered technology strategic plan, selecting best-in-class applications for our attorneys and business professionals. Synergies between applications amplify benefits and reduce friction, so we focus on AI tools that complement our existing applications and can benefit from close integrations. Finally, given the rapid pace of AI advancement, we look for vendors that will partner and collaborate with us, helping drive adoption and considering our input for their roadmap and future direction.

When evaluating new GenAI tools, the most important criteria to me are: (1) functionality – does the tool align with our business needs and use cases; (2) security – does it comply with our firm’s data protection, governance, and regulatory standards; (3) value – what is the total cost of ownership, and does the return justify the investment; (4) differentiation – is the tool built on proprietary content or capabilities that are difficult to replicate, rather than being just a basic GPT wrapper; and (5) stability – is the vendor trustworthy, and committed to the long-term support of the product.

  1. What are your top lessons or best practices for successfully selecting and implementing AI tools within a law firm environment? 

Attorneys and law firms are typically risk averse. AI is disruptive. It’s not an easy marriage. Beginning the journey at the most basic level, building up institutional awareness and trust, is essential. The next step is partnering with tech adept and innovative personalities to find discreet use cases and demonstrate success, while showcasing how related risks can be identified and managed. This creates momentum for more opportunities.

For us, successful AI adoption really starts with attorney leadership—teams identifying needs in their practice, spotting client-facing opportunities, and thinking through how AI can solve real problems or make work better for their people. We’ve found that a hands-on, well-structured pilot makes all the difference: feedback is collected in multiple ways, shared across participants, and creates a sense of community and momentum. The pilots that stick are the ones with strong change management, clear communication around the “why,” and use cases that are actually grounded in the way lawyers work. At the end of the day, tech alone doesn’t drive success—it’s the people, process, and willingness to lean in. And just as important, we look for vendors who act like true partners—invested in our success, not just in selling us something.

You need an experienced team at the table, bringing a broad spectrum of attorneys and business professionals. Making decisions about AI tools in isolation by individual departments is a recipe for failure. Blank Rome’s deeply ingrained culture of collaboration is a significant strength in an effort that truly requires a multi-disciplinary focus. We make decisions about AI as a team and collectively commit to the success of our chosen direction. We also commit to the feedback and follow-up process ensuring we remain nimble enough to make adjustments as our client needs and AI landscape continue to evolve.

  1. What approaches have you found most effective in driving internal buy-in and sustained use of AI tools within your firm? 

Like anything, you need to start with why. Connecting the dots between technology, client service, and value gets attention and may result in budget allocations, but adoption and effective use will suffer if you aren’t aligned with leadership at the practice level and getting people to believe I can do this.

Driving internal buy-in and sustained use of AI tools takes more than just rolling something out and making an announcement—we know it doesn’t work that way. I often say people need to hear about something seven times before it sticks, and it has to come through different channels with value-based messaging that speaks directly to what they care about. That takes creativity, active listening, and a team that’s fully aligned around a shared mission. Everyone on our team, even those outside of practice technology, is expected to understand how these tools support the work so they can confidently “sell” the benefits to attorneys. We reach people from multiple angles—training, case studies, client panels, innovation events, and day-to-day engagement—to make sure adoption is both meaningful and lasting.

Coordination is essential to attorney buy-in and adoption. The firm prioritized making space for learning and discussion about AI across all levels of the organization, including bringing in industry experts to help lawyers evaluate the intersection of AI in legal. AI was a key topic at the firm’s partner retreat with an engaging session by the founder of a leading legal generative AI application. Attorneys experimented with AI in a low-stakes environment and shared use cases through various mediums, fostering peer-driven buy-in. Further, a multi-modal training approach, including practice group sessions, “AI Saturdays,” and private coaching, were designed to meet lawyers where they were on their AI journey. Training focused on practical use cases, making it easier for attorneys to connect AI to their work.

The absolute most important thing is to have a great GenAI tool, that adds a ton of value, and is easy to use. Once you have that, start by mandating firm-wide training that focuses on practical, high-impact use cases. Next find attorney champions—both associates and partners—and periodically share their success stories. To win over remaining skeptics, point directly to RFPs and outside counsel guidelines showing how the firm’s clients increasingly expect innovation and responsible GenAI use.

  1. What are some things you wish more AI or legal tech vendors understood before reaching out to your team?

You may have an outstanding product or service, but it may just be the wrong time. The best partnership will occur if we can realize sustained success with your platform, and that requires connecting at the right time on our AI journey.

I wish more AI and legal tech vendors took the time to understand our internal procurement process, how we make decisions, and who our key stakeholders are. It would go a long way if they came in with a better understanding of our goals, integration requirements, and the real pain points we’re trying to solve. Every firm is different, and so are our practice strengths—what works for one may not work for us. A little upfront homework can make the conversation far more productive.

Sending broad solicitations or directly approaching attorneys with a sales pitch is rarely effective. Our best vendors respect the procurement and onboarding process, making it easier for us. The business team at a firm is your best ally in a partnership, but they manage competing priorities. Ethical, contractual, and regulatory requirements create unique challenges, especially with AI-based technologies. Vendors who haven’t prioritized learning the business of law are often the most challenging to partner with, making collaboration and understanding the firm’s process essential.

First, if you can’t meet our security and information governance standards, we can’t proceed—and most law firms won’t either. If you’re serious about selling to legal, get that in order up front. Also, take time to understand my firm, our practice areas, and our GenAI experience before reaching out. A thoughtful, tailored approach is far more likely to get my attention—and a response. Generic pitches are far less effective.

  1. Many attorneys express hesitancy around using AI due to concerns like hallucinations, quality control, and potential impacts on billable hours. How do you think firms should weigh the tradeoffs between efficiency, accuracy, and economics when adopting AI? 

There is no question our industry will continue to evolve, but the related pieces will advance at different speeds, creating tension along the way. Most clients are becoming educated on these topics and forming their own opinions. We should be prepared to listen and align while doing our part to craft novel solutions and demonstrate increasing value.

Concerns like hallucinations, quality control, and the impact on billable hours are valid—but they can’t be the reason we stall progress. The real risk lies in not adopting AI and new ways of working, which will leave firms behind as the industry moves forward. Name an industry that isn’t exploring or implementing AI in some facet of their business—it’s hard to find one. At Honigman, we want to lead and partner with clients on this journey, not find ourselves playing catch-up because we were overly cautious. To address the concerns listed we firmly believe that this is why human talent remains essential to delivering high-quality legal services, and why we must build the right processes and guardrails to manage risk. Additionally, firm and practice strategies need to thoughtfully integrate AI into both short- and long-term planning—because standing still isn’t a viable business strategy.

“Ready, fire, aim” is a recipe for disaster when it comes to AI in a law firm. Having a roadmap to guide your AI strategy will keep you focused on the most relevant use cases and applications. Establishing rules for each AI application is crucial, including considerations like appropriate use, application selection, training, data governance, and compliance. When exploring ROI, evaluate whether the application saves costs, manages risk, or creates new revenue streams. Answering these questions before making long-term commitments will help align your AI strategy with business priorities. This approach ensures your AI initiatives are both effective and sustainable.

Prudent firms should weigh the tradeoffs in favor of responsibly using GenAI. When it comes to accuracy and quality, neither human lawyers nor GenAI tools are flawless, and recent, credible case studies show that attorneys aided by well-vetted legal GenAI consistently outperform those working manually, in both accuracy and speed. On the efficiency/economic front, at the end of the day our obligation is to deliver the highest quality work as efficiently as possible, and that includes using GenAI if it adds value. Most clients already expect—or will soon expect—their lawyers to use these tools. That said, I can report that our attorneys have been even busier and more productive in the GenAI era than in the years preceding it, and I expect that trend to continue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *