With all the emphasis on storytelling and audience connection in SXSW panel discussions, it was a bit of a shock to sit through a clunker of a presentation. But, like most things at SXSW, there’s still something to learn — even from missteps.
Not many lawyers attend SXSW since it’s not a legal conference, but there are a few law-related sessions. One such session covered Generative AI (Gen AI), large language models (LLMs), and how lawyers can use them. As you might expect, it wasn’t particularly well attended, but most of the audience consisted of lawyers or legal professionals with varying levels of experience with Gen AI.
A Presentation That Misses the Mark
The presenter — a practicing lawyer who seemed like a good guy — was clearly enthusiastic about these tools. But somewhere along the way, he veered into a long and complicated discussion about why law firms should create their own large language models. He then launched into an intricate walkthrough of how this could be done, complete with dense PowerPoint slides, diagrams, and references to a specific tool for building these models.
At the conclusion of all this, he confidently announced that the process was “easy and simple,” implying that we should all be familiar with this tool and using it.
Now, I’m no stranger to Gen AI or LLMs. I know most of the tools on the market, and I write extensively about legal tech. But, frankly, I couldn’t follow his presentation. He used jargon I’d never heard before. The tool he referenced was completely unfamiliar. The PowerPoint slides were indecipherable.
And if I was lost — a lawyer with a decent grasp of Gen AI — how did the rest of the audience feel? When I looked around the room, I saw nothing but blank stares and glazed-over faces.
The presentation didn’t land because the speaker didn’t understand his audience. He didn’t address their real needs or interests. Too often, presenters like the one I listened aren’t trying to educate — they’re trying to impress.
The Danger of Technical Overload
I’ve seen a lot of presentations like this, and here’s the danger: When lawyers hear technical jargon-heavy explanations like this, they disengage. They conclude that AI is too complicated, too overwhelming, and that they don’t have the time or energy to understand it.
They tune out. They decide Gen AI isn’t for them. The unintended message they hear is this is too complicated for them.
What Lawyers Need
Of course, lawyers do need to understand the risks and benefits of any technology they use. The risks of blindly adopting AI without proper vetting can be devastating. But that doesn’t mean lawyers need to understand the intricacies of how the technology works.
Most of us don’t know exactly how email functions, but we know how to use it — and we understand the risks. We don’t need a deep technical understanding of the cloud to store and access files. I don’t know every mechanical detail of how my car operates, but I know how to drive it safely.
The same logic applies to AI.
Giving hyper-technical presentations to lawyers doesn’t help them grasp the risks. It just bores them. Worse, it fails to convey the benefits — which is the other half of the competency equation. Instead of fostering understanding, it drives lawyers away from exploring tools that could improve their practice. And that’s the real shame.
The Goal Should Be Engagement
The goal of legal tech presentations should be to show lawyers how Gen AI can actually and practically help them. They should demonstrate real-world tasks that AI tools like ChatGPT can handle — things that free up time and eliminate tedious work.
I’ve seen (and given) these kinds of presentations to rooms full of lawyers. Instead of blank stares and people checking their emails, I see mouths hanging open. I see genuine enthusiasm. I hear lawyers say, “I had no idea these tools could do that.”
They walk away excited, not intimidated.
They become evangelists, not skeptics.
And that should be the goal of every legal tech presentation: Not just informing, but inspiring.
Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.