Introduction
Legal services are undergoing fundamental change. Who does the work, how it gets done, and how value is measured will look very different in the future. The debate is no longer whether this transformation will happen but how quickly.
David Malkinson explains: “History shows there is always a lag between the invention of a general-purpose technology and its measurable impact on productivity. The technology may arrive quickly, but human systems take longer to adapt.”
Three years into the latest wave of legal tech adoption, the industry is starting to see what works and what doesn’t. As Sarah Iqbal puts it: “I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of legal tech implementation.” That perspective reveals adoption, not technology, as the true frontier.
The good: When technology meets lawyers where they are
The “good” happens when technology blends seamlessly into legal work. In-house teams have cut contract review times from hours to minutes without losing quality, because the tools respected how lawyers already think and operate.
David M. highlights the practical barrier: “The key test is whether tools save time in practice. Too often, uploading documents, typing queries, and cross-checking outputs takes longer than simply opening the file yourself.”
The good emerges when that friction disappears and adoption feels invisible; the tech becomes an extension of practice because it seamlessly integrates into your current workstream and other software applications used daily.
The bad: When adoption is an afterthought
The “bad” arises when adoption is underestimated. Lawyers are told to abandon decades-old processes, only to find new platforms that add friction rather than remove it.
Sarah I. has seen lawyers revert to Word and email even when advanced platforms were available. David M. calls this the “reality gap”: “Without the heavy lift of contract normalization – reviewing documents, building playbooks, and embedding negotiation history – redlining tools will under-deliver. The technology is capable, but the groundwork is essential.”
Adoption does not fail because lawyers resist change, it fails because the change is poorly designed.
The ugly: When hype turns into harm
The “ugly” side of legal tech isn’t simply non-usage – it is misguided adoption driven by over-promising.
David M. observes: “Differentiation on features is difficult. Buyers are often confused by road maps that change fast, and when promises don’t match delivery, disappointment is inevitable.”
Organizations sometimes rush to roll out tools without proper testing, governance, or alignment to real workflows. Vendors oversell capabilities – promising “end-to-end automation” that turns out to be little more than clause search, or advertising 80% time-savings that translate into 5%.
Sarah I. warns: “When lawyers feel misled, trust collapses. A single failed rollout can set adoption back years, hardening skepticism across the team.”
The ugly outcome is not just wasted investment but erosion of confidence. Once adoption is tainted by hype and missteps, rebuilding credibility is far harder than starting from zero.
Global vs. local adoption
Adoption looks different across jurisdictions:
David M. notes: “Unlike CRM or finance systems, legal work is fragmented and highly contextual. That makes adoption more complicated and more localized than in most other functions.”
This proves adoption strategies cannot be “lift and shift.” As Sarah I. observes: “Legal tech may be global, but adoption is always local.”
Trust and transparency as gateways
Across all markets, adoption depends on trust. Lawyers will not adopt unless they trust the system.
David M. explains: “Support, customer success, and integration into day-to-day workflows often matter more than features themselves.”
Sarah I. adds: “Trust comes from transparency. Lawyers need to see the reasoning, not just the result. Without explainability and audit trails, adoption stalls.”
The human-AI partnership
Adoption is not about replacing expertise but preserving it.
AI clears away high-volume, low-value tasks, enabling lawyers to focus on judgment, strategy, and nuance. “The future of legal work is human judgment powered by machine intelligence and adoption is the bridge between the two,” says Sarah I.
David M. frames it as a structural shift: “The boundary between law firms and ALSPs is already blurring, and technology will accelerate that. The question is how quickly the profession adapts.”
The missing ingredient: Change management
Technology alone cannot transform legal work. Organizations need the “muscle” to identify where work can be optimized, select the right tools, and continuously re-evaluate as technology matures.
Sarah I. adds that legal engineers are critical: “They translate vendor promises into usable workflows, run practical training, and ensure lawyers feel heard. Without this, adoption plateaus. With it, adoption thrives.”
Conclusion: Who will win the race?
Legal services will continue to change, but transformation will take longer than many expect. Success depends on clarity of use cases, trust in outputs, and the discipline to push through hype and missteps.
“The winners in legal tech won’t be those who build the smartest AI”, Sarah I. concludes. “They will be the ones who master adoption.”
David M. echoes this pragmatism: “The direction of travel is clear. The challenge is the pace and the willingness to do the hard work required to realize the benefits.”
Together, their perspectives show that the good, the bad, and the ugly of adoption are not endpoints, but lessons on the path to a more efficient, transparent, and human-centered legal industry.
