Introduction
In the rapidly evolving landscape of legal technology, law firms often focus on the wrong aspects of artificial intelligence (AI)—purchasing platforms, evaluating vendors, and assessing feature sets. However, underlying these decisions lies a more pressing issue: the hesitance and concern of the associates who will be using these technologies. Understanding their perspectives is crucial for successful AI adoption in legal practices.
Law firms devote considerable energy to deciding which AI tools to implement. They engage in comparisons, weighing options like Harvey against CoCounsel, or Claude versus ChatGPT, and even set up numerous demonstrations with every legal tech company promising transformative solutions.
Yet, many associates may quietly obstruct these AI initiatives from taking root.
Data indicates a troubling narrative that many managing partners fail to confront. A recent Pew Research Center study from September 2025 reveals that 50% of Americans are increasingly concerned about the rise of AI in everyday life, a significant increase from 37% in 2021. Alarmingly, 57% perceive substantial societal risks associated with AI, primarily fearing that it may diminish human capabilities and interpersonal connections.
Your associates are not immune to these worries. They are lawyers, yes, but they are also individuals impacted by the same news articles, absorbing similar fears, and questioning whether they are training their potential replacements.
Behind closed doors, they may not voice their doubts openly: they lack confidence that leadership will navigate this transition effectively.
The Pew study illustrates that 60% of Americans desire greater control over AI’s application in their lives, a sentiment echoed by your associates. Instead of empowering them, many firms function like they are launching new timekeeping software—a simple vendor presentation, a training video, and an expectation for seamless adaptation.
It’s no surprise when adoption rates decline steeply and quality diminishes as a result. As noted by law firm consultants, this pattern recurs consistently, leading to considerable frustration at significant costs.
The Subtle but Damaging Resistance
When individuals feel threatened, their instinct is often to resist rather than resign. In the context of law firms, this resistance takes on sophisticated forms. It could manifest as an associate who mistakenly neglects to utilize the AI tool for their next draft or a partner who contends that the technology isn’t yet suitable for client assignments. It might even be an entire practice group that appears engaged during training but reverts to old methodologies as soon as the session ends.
Such resistance might not show up in your performance dashboards. Usage metrics may appear acceptable, but the real indicator is outcome: Is your output improved? Are your associates operating more efficiently? Are clients seeing genuine value?
In many cases, the answer remains negative—not due to ineffective tools but because a portion of the team actively avoids using them, while others inadequately engage with the technology out of a lack of proper guidance.
Moreover, Pew data indicates that 53% of Americans lack confidence in distinguishing AI-generated content from human-produced work. This uncertainty permeates your team as well; they are unsure of how to assess AI output for quality, leading them to revert to familiar practices.
This is a failure in leadership, not a flaw in technology.
Why Conventional Rollouts Fall Short
Typically, law firms approach AI implementations through a conventional corporate lens, using strategies suited for software solutions that do not threaten job security. Rolling out new case management systems involves simple vendor demos and help desks; with no fear of obsolescence, lawyers can adapt seamlessly.
AI presents a different challenge. The Pew study illustrates that 53% of Americans believe AI will negatively affect creative thinking. Alarmingly, this skepticism rises to 61% among individuals under 30. Your younger associates, who you may be relying on to facilitate AI integration, are particularly doubtful about the long-term benefits versus the risks of becoming replaceable.
In an hour-long vendor presentation, such fears go unaddressed, signaling that AI is merely a product purchased rather than a capability developed collaboratively. This approach may imply that deadlines are prioritized over addressing the team’s authentic concerns.
Your team is highly perceptive to these signals.
The Opportunity for Meaningful Leadership
What proves effective is engaging with your team where they currently stand, rather than where you wish them to be.
This involves recognizing and addressing fears rather than dismissing them. The reality is that AI will bring changes to legal practices, and while some tasks performed by associates may be automated, those who adapt well to AI will not be replaced; they will be empowered. This message can only resonate through open discussions about what truly matters.
It requires investing time in personal relationships instead of solely relying on group training sessions. A partner who collaborates with an associate to demonstrate how AI can assist in drafting a motion, while walking through the quality control process, cultivates trust. A managing partner who shares their own learning journey fosters psychological safety. A practice group leader who actively seeks feedback, implementing changes based on that input, communicates respect.
This process involves attentive, individual engagement, which is not easily scalable. It cannot be outsourced to a vendor. It requires senior lawyers to model AI adoption transparently, including their own mistakes and uncertainties.
Additionally, it is imperative to grant individuals autonomy. The Pew study shows that 76% of Americans prioritize being able to discern whether content is generated by AI or humans. Your team deserves that same level of transparency and control. Provide them with choices on which tools to utilize in their workflows. Allowing them to explore different tools without fear of repercussions facilitates AI fluency at their own pace while ensuring minimum standards for client work.
Practical Steps Toward Effective Implementation
Commence with volunteers rather than imposing mandates. Engage with associates who are interested in AI and collaborate with them to formulate best practices. This approach will create internal advocates who can credibly communicate both the advantages and limitations to their peers.
Encourage an environment for candid feedback. Your team should feel at ease expressing that a tool is ineffective for a specific task without being labeled resistant to change. Some AI applications may falter, and your culture should promote learning from those setbacks instead of concealing them.
Focus on depth instead of breadth. Cultivating effective AI use within one practice group is more beneficial than shallow adoption across the entire firm. Collaborate closely with early adopters to document successful methods, building institutional knowledge before broadening implementation based on evidence rather than vendor claims.
Most importantly, ensure AI adoption aligns with your firm’s mission of enhancing client service. The Pew data indicates that Americans are increasingly supportive of AI for analytical tasks that deliver clear value, with 74% favoring its use in weather forecasting, 70% in detecting financial crimes, and 66% in developing new medications.
Your team will be more inclined to embrace AI when they observe its tangible benefits to their client work, not merely faster outcomes. Demonstrate how AI helps them identify issues they might otherwise overlook, enabling them to allocate more time to strategic decisions rather than document reviews, and how it allows them to assist clients who may have previously found the firm’s services unaffordable.
The Divergent Paths Ahead
Some firms will perceive AI merely as a technological hurdle. They will invest in the best tools, hold training sessions, and wonder why the outcomes fall short, attributing blame to their people for resisting change.
Conversely, other firms will acknowledge this as a leadership challenge. They will focus on cultivating AI-literate teams through relationship building, trust, and true empowerment. While their initial pace may be slower, they will develop capabilities that compound benefits over time.
As the Pew study indicates, public concern about AI continues to rise rather than diminish. Your team’s apprehensions won’t simply vanish. The question is whether you will guide them through this uncertainty or merely expect them to overcome it on their own.
While the tools themselves are significant, they are relatively easy to procure. You can acquire Claude, ChatGPT, or Harvey at any moment. However, forging a team that trusts you enough to fundamentally alter their legal practices—that’s the real challenge, the essence of true leadership.
And therein lies the authentic opportunity.
Conclusion
In summary, the effective implementation of AI in law firms requires a comprehensive understanding of the concerns and emotions of associates, rather than merely focusing on technology. By fostering an environment of trust, transparency, and genuine collaboration, firms can transform their culture and realize the full potential of AI, ultimately enhancing both their legal practice and client service.
