Legalweek: AI Divides Lawyers Between Skepticism and Necessity

At the Legalweek conference held at the Javits Center in New York, artificial intelligence (AI) was the central topic of discussion. However, despite the apparent enthusiasm for this technology, many lawyers remain skeptical about its adoption. Major concerns include job security and perceived inadequate training to effectively use these legal tools. Billions of dollars are at stake, based on the idea that lawyers need to work faster with tools developed by startups like Harvey and Legora.

Legalweek has become an essential annual event to assess the impact of generative artificial intelligence in an inherently cautious industry. This was my second year at the event, and I noticed that the demonstrations were noticeably more advanced than the previous year. AI "agents" were ubiquitous in the exhibition hall, presented as digital colleagues capable of drafting, reviewing, and managing complex workflows that previously required a junior associate and a lot of coffee.

However, a more subtle signal emerged from the conference: the adoption curve for AI does not match the general enthusiasm. During a presentation, Steven Abrahams from Microsoft asked the audience who uses software to automate contract review — one of the clearest use cases for large language models. To his surprise, only a few hands were raised.

On stage, the warnings were clear: clients will go elsewhere if firms do not change their habits. "Revenues are at stake," said Emma Dowden, Chief Operating Officer of Burges Salmon, during a panel moderated by Harvey, an $8 billion startup selling software to law firms and corporate legal teams.

In that same session, a moderator asked Derek Morales, in-house counsel at Macquarie Capital, whether "AI maturity" will influence the choice of external lawyers in a year. "I judge today," he replied, adding that it is "embarrassing" to hear firms say they have hired a new director of innovation while hesitating to purchase licenses for legal AI platforms.

Throughout the week, lawyers attempted to explain the lukewarm response to AI adoption. Emma Dowden mentioned fear. Lawyers, she said on stage, worry about what automation means for their own jobs, how it might reduce billable work, and whether they understand the technology well enough to defend it against a skeptical client. This anxiety can turn into resistance. Partners may want the benefits of technology, she suggested, as long as another practice in the firm tries it first.

Young lawyers are often seen as the easiest to convince. This is not always the case, said Sarah Eagen, head of learning and development at the large firm Cleary Gottlieb, during a panel. Cleary Gottlieb has rolled out Legora, a competitor to Harvey, firm-wide. Yet many associates view automation as a threat, having invested years and money into a career based on entry-level tasks.

Lawyers are not alone in this anxiety. In sectors where AI adoption is more advanced, workforce reductions are often presented as a natural step — the cost of doing business in an era where work moves faster, and companies insist they simply need fewer people to do it.

Lawyers are trained to make decisions only after gathering the facts. Speakers suggested that when firms genuinely invest in training, lawyers are more likely to use the tools — because they understand the limitations.

Ian Nelson, who leads Hotshot, a company that helps law firms develop training programs, stated during a panel that too few firms offer training on AI. "There seems to be this mentality" that training can wait until a firm has licensed a tool, he said. This is a short-sighted view, Nelson argued, as some lawyers will still use chatbot tools. And when training does occur, he added, it is often too narrow. Think of demonstrations specific to a tool without the context of the risks and policies specific to the firm.

The most pressing question at Legalweek remained one that made vendors uncomfortable: why aren’t lawyers using the tools? But as the week progressed, a second question began to emerge.

If AI can truly deliver a better and more cost-effective service, at what point does resistance begin to resemble professional negligence? In-house counsel Michael Pierson raised this question during the Harvey panel. Just over two years ago, Pierson and his former partner at FisherBroyles, Joel Ferdinand, left the firm to launch Pierson Ferdinand, a small decentralized firm that heavily relies on tools like Harvey and operates without associates.

"If we are not using AI in the daily delivery of our legal services to our clients, is that professional negligence in itself? I don't know," he said. "But we are in the client service business, and anything that allows us to achieve an excellent work product, we should explore."