Timothy Morano
Jan 26, 2026 14:18
AmLaw 100 leaders identify change management, not technology access, as the primary bottleneck preventing legal AI from scaling beyond pilot programs.
Legal AI startup Harvey convened AmLaw 100 leaders for a private dinner in New York earlier this month, and the consensus was blunt: technology isn’t the problem. Organizational readiness is.
The gathering at NARO brought together firm leaders spanning innovation, knowledge management, and practice leadership alongside Harvey CEO Winston Weinberg. No slides, no presentations—just candid discussion about what’s actually working and what’s stalling as firms push AI beyond experimental pilots.
The Real Bottleneck
According to post-event reflections from co-host Oz Benamram, one theme dominated every conversation: capacity for change. Firms with strong intent and capable tools are struggling to align stakeholders, redesign workflows, and adjust incentives. The gap between running a pilot and achieving sustained adoption is proving wider than many anticipated.
This tracks with broader industry trends. Thomson Reuters research has flagged concerns about an AI bubble in legal, emphasizing that strategic adoption delivering clear client value—not tool accumulation—separates winners from firms that stall.
Clients Aren’t Waiting
Perhaps the sharpest observation from the room: in-house legal teams are already planning for a world where firm economics, staffing models, and billing structures look fundamentally different. Many general counsel appear more willing than their outside counsel to acknowledge this reality.
Firms waiting for full internal consensus before acting risk falling out of step with client expectations that are already crystallizing—and in some cases, already driving decisions about which firms get work.
The Junior Lawyer Problem
The most animated discussion centered on talent development. If AI absorbs the repetitive work that historically trained junior lawyers, what replaces it? How do firms design learning and apprenticeship models when time spent no longer proxies for expertise gained?
Harvey is betting this concern extends beyond firms. Through its Law School Program, the company is working to equip future lawyers with generative AI skills earlier in their training—acknowledging that talent development needs rethinking across the entire legal pipeline.
Power Shifts Inside Firms
AI is quietly reshaping internal influence. Knowledge and innovation teams previously disconnected from client work are increasingly being pulled into client-facing discussions—not because they’re pushing adoption, but because clients are asking for them. This “reverse inquiry” is elevating roles that bridge technology, practice, and client service.
ROI Gets Redefined
Time savings still matter, but firms are expanding how they measure AI value. Quality consistency, risk reduction, client satisfaction, lawyer retention, and competitive differentiation are entering the conversation. Many leaders acknowledged they lack frameworks to measure and communicate this broader value—internally or to clients.
The takeaway was clear: the next phase of legal AI will be shaped by execution, not experimentation. Firms treating AI as an operating capability rather than a technology project will have the advantage. Those still chasing consensus may find their clients have already moved on.
Image source: Shutterstock
Credit: Source link
