When it comes to the rate of AI adoption, the market has moved at rocket speed from a phase of experimentation right through to real-life deployment. It’s now commonplace for firms to invest well into the millions on AI solutions. How do firms intend to embed AI culturally and ensure long-term adoption?

LexisNexis and The Lawyer sat down with managing partners across the City to see how firms manage the assimilation of tech and AI with their people. Aided by the MAPS model for behavioural change (motivation, ability, psychological capital and supporting environment) designed by Professor Shlomo Ben-Hur and Nik Kinley, the roundtable delved into what makes innovation stick within law firms.

Motivation

Motivation encompasses the desire to change and innovate in the first place. Many firms already possess this desire given the pressures of operating in such a competitive market. The risk of losing market share is often enough to get firms to commit to strategy and adoption. There’s then the kudos that’s received as a result, as firms appear ‘progressive’ and ‘innovative’. This positive perception also translates to both talent attraction and retention, meaning firms can remain competitive from a talent perspective.

However, the restraining factors to motivation, the roundtable discerned, primarily reside in risk and fear of the unknown. Where AI is relatively new, and the speed of its development somewhat unnerving, the roundtable recognised a significant lack of ‘proof points’. The lack of success stories in the industry means firms struggle to provide a cost-benefit analysis to senior leadership and build an effective business case for implementation. This also comes with a risk of reduced profitability if change projects fail as they sometimes do. This all speaks to an over-reliance on output and success. The roundtable noted the need to allow space for failure, despite there often being resistance to change at partner level.

Psychological capital

What mindsets are most and least helpful in the context of change? The roundtable discussed that one of the main restraints on psychological capital is the threat to identity. As a profession that places value on individual specialisms and legal niches, the threat of AI and its corresponding speediness is seen as a challenger to this reputation. Firms are concerned they won’t be able to charge out the time it takes to deliver specialist work if AI can potentially halve it.

Suggestions on navigating this threat to lawyer identity involve reframing an understanding of how AI underpins and supports what lawyers do. While it has the potential to improve resource management and work allocation, more emphasis is needed on how processes can be more efficient rather than how quickly they are delivered. The roundtable also agreed on the need for innovation and adoption coaches to support people within firms, demonstrating the types of behaviours needed to incorporate AI into daily practice.

Supporting environment

What social norms or peer pressure might influence behaviour connected to the change? These are the questions the roundtable asked about the social environment needed to maintain change. Meaningful investment from senior leadership and the wider partnership came out as one of the most important factors. The roundtable cited financial investment as a form of support, with some firms implementing innovation funds for fee-earners to bill time to when working on change work.

Though support on a capital level is necessary, the benefits from a mental health perspective also demonstrate the value of change. For fee-earners working into the late hours, faced with a blank email template to draft a final reply, AI can do the first draft for them to speed up the process.

The main concerns around creating a supporting environment revolve around vocal nay-sayers and those at senior level who are actively change-resistant. The roundtable also challenged the traditional assumption that the ‘old ways are the best’ for legal training. At present, the training model relies on osmosis at the trainee level. However, if AI can automate training tasks, then the model needs to be reconsidered and firms need to become more purposeful about training.

Change in law firms comes with its own challenges, the roundtable highlights, as the partnership model requires leadership to gain their members’ full support. Although change projects fail more than they succeed, firms should be encouraged to look beyond this and hone in on individual behavioural change to ensure the continued adoption of AI.