The AI Summit kicked off on December the 10th with some fireside chats with various business leaders about how they view AI. Their conclusions? Be flexible. Look at AI and what it can do holistically. Deal with not knowing the future by admitting that you don’t.
The contrast with AI legal thinking could not have been more striking. Legal still sees AI as just something to add on here and there instead of a potential new reality. It’s like driving pell-mell into the future while looking at the rear-view mirror.
But first let’s get to the fireside chats.
The Players
Here were the players in yesterday morning’s fireside chats:
- Aaron Rajan, Chief Digital Information Officer and Global VP, Unilever
- Traci Gusher, EY Americas AI and Data Leader
- Chris Crayner, Chief Digital & Technology Officer, NBC Universal
- Axel Threlfall, Editor at Large, Reuters
Three different businesses. Remarkably consistent viewpoints.
A Mindset for the Future
Here is what permeated their comments first with respect to how to deal with the exponential change AI may bring. Leaders need to make themselves vulnerable when it comes to AI. As Rajan observed, there is power in saying I don’t know. Of admitting that I don’t know what the future will hold or what the best AI use cases will be. That’s a hard pill for most lawyers to swallow and for managing partners of a firm full of aggressive lawyers to admit. It’s probably not the best way to remain managing partner.
Leaders also need to be open to the possibility that the future is going to be different, not just a minor iteration in what it is now. It’s less about having a crystal ball and more about being nimble and flexible.
Each panelist kept coming back to the idea of journey: the tech that we all bet on two years ago is not what we have today. Understanding that it’s a journey and not a destination is key.
And recognizing the value of experimentation and research and development.
AI Is Not Just a Bolt-On
The group emphasized it’s essential for organizations to think about AI not as an add-on tool but as an end-to-end workflow transformation. Rather than taking legacy processes and trying to squeeze AI into them, the focus should be on reimagining the entire workflow.
Rather than a bolt-on, AI is the foundation. The goal is rethinking processes entirely, not just solving individual pain points. AI is not “whack-a-mole.” Seeking 10% improvements in various tasks with AI tools is a trap. It creates tech debt, choosing quick technical fixes over robust solutions, leading to increased work and hidden costs down the road.
Cultural Debt
Crayner talked about the notion of cultural debt, where businesses follow a “cow path” just because it’s a path they can see. Businesses need to identify places and workflows where things are done a certain way just because that’s the way they have always been done. Cultural debt, according to Crayner, like tech debt, is where changes are made that don’t transform the business.
Another point: a value of AI is that by freeing professionals of busy work, it makes them happier employees. And as Crayner pointed out, there is direct correlation between happier employees and consumer satisfaction.
The group did admit that training is an issue yet to be solved. In every business, the younger generation of future leaders learn about the business by walking around and just doing things. Many of those learning opportunities are being replaced by AI. How younger people will gain the same level of knowledge than those before them remains to be seen.
So, how does this all square up with legal and with law firms in which I spent some 30 years of my life?
And What Say Legal?
One of the reasons I like to come to conferences like this is to hear how other businesses and industries think. Yes, there were a lot of platitudes thrown out during the chats and beyond. Yes, there were lots of lofty goals and reality may be far different. But lofty goals and platitudes create a culture that can better deal with change, particularly exponential change.
But compare the mindset of most law firms and lawyers. For example, I don’t hear many law firm leaders say they don’t know the answers but are open to the journey. I get it. But in times of robust and fast change, it may be critical.
Few law firms are investing end-of-the-year profits into research and development instead of distributions to the partners.
Few encourage innovation and experimentation. Think how many legal tech startups came from ideas young lawyers had as associates to solve some pain point. Their firms discouraged them to pursue their ideas because “hey, you need to meet your billable hour quotas.”
From what I see, AI is in fact considered a bolt-on at most law firms. The focus is on how an AI tool can address the problem of the day. There’s little thinking about how AI might be used to reimagine work processes. Many firms view AI as something merely to try to look innovative to clients.
And law firms continue pile up both tech debt and face cultural debt, often at the urging of vendors who continue to offer enhancements that don’t do all that much.
Law Firms’ Cultural Debt
Most firms see AI as a way to continue doing things like they always have, just more efficiently (and even that, given the billable hour model is viewed grudgingly). They aren’t looking at how AI will disrupt their blind adherence to the billable hour model.
And law firms’ answer to the training challenge? Yank the associates back into the office four or five days a week so they can absorb water cooler knowledge from the partners (many of whom are working remotely, by the way).
There is precious little investment in robust, equitable training programs that focus on ensuring all associates develop the kind of knowledge and experiences lawyers need to form the critical thinking skills so necessary to being a good lawyer.
In fact, other than lip service, few firms recognize the notion that happier lawyers and legal professionals make for happier clients.
A Hidden Danger
There’s another danger that the prevailing law firm mindset poses. Melissa Rogozinski and I have recently written about the over reliance on AI, the infrastructure challenges, and the cost of verification. All real dangers.
But the whack-a-mole approach and not keeping an open mindset leads right into the overreliance danger. It’s an inability to consider both the benefits and potential risks because you’re myopically focused on the 10% or less perceived incremental gains. It’s the piling up of the tech debt by not thinking about whether verification costs more than the savings, leading to overall increased costs.
The Challenge
There is lots of AI cheering going on at this conference. Lots of selling and AI giddiness. But the fireside chat participants convinced me that a healthy mindset brings some realistic thinking about where we may be headed.
Certainly, there are law firms that think like these panelists. That are looking at the big picture. That aren’t afraid to say they don’t know. That’s not the prevailing mindset.
But that’s what law firm leaders better start doing — before AI, tech debt, and cultural debt eat them alive. The survivors will be the ones that think not like lawyers but like the businesspeople who see the big picture, not small ones.
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.