Walking the AI tightrope: Communicating innovation without undermining core values – Andrew Longstreth writes for NYLJ
“Law firms walk a tightrope when communicating about their use of artificial intelligence,” writes Anderw Longstreth of Infinite Global.
New York Law Journal
Law firms walk a tightrope when communicating about their use of artificial intelligence. On one hand, they need to signal to clients, employees and the market that they are exploring and innovating to take advantage of the technology. On the other, they must reaffirm their commitment to the human skills and judgment that have been the foundation of their business models and client relationships for decades.
Most books about AI are bound to be outdated as soon as they are published. But the 2021 book, “The Age of AI and Our Human Future,” presents a sturdy framework that remains relevant today. The authors argue that humanity faces three choices at every turn when confronted with AI: confine it, partner with it or defer to it. This framework can guide law firms in shaping their approach to communication regarding AI.
Confining, leveraging and deferring to AI
Law firms have numerous opportunities to integrate AI into their business functions and practices, but not all tasks are created equal. Some go to the heart of what law firms offer; others do not. To protect their brands and remain competitive, firms need to be intentional in communicating when their lawyers and employees confine AI, leverage it as a tool or defer to it for specific processes.
That framework, of course, requires that firms understand the risks of using AI. At Infinite Global, we have mapped those risks, which fall into three main categories: input risks, operational risks and output risks. They can include copyright infringement and plagiarism (input); data breaches and system failure (operational); and hallucinations (output).
Of course, there are real risks in not using AI as well. Those include falling behind competitors, failing to deliver on client satisfaction and losing the battle for talent. The key is developing balanced messaging targeted at specific audiences.
Efficient, trusted advice
The good news for law firms is that trusted expertise hasn’t become any less important in the early days of AI. When a corporate board asks the general counsel about the law firm she hired to handle a multibillion-dollar case or a transformational transaction, she will cite the credentials of the people she trusts, not the bargain price of their services.
A recent Thomson Reuters survey of more than 1,000 lawyers found that 70% cited expertise as a reason to recommend a law firm. But the survey also found that in-house counsel want to see improvements in costs and service delivery from their firms. In short, they like trusted advice; they just want it faster and cheaper.
We’ve already seen embarrassing stories of lawyers relying on chatbots to write their briefs only to find that the cases cited were fake. Those stories are reminders that reputations built over years can be destroyed in minutes.
The question of how to engage AI and on what tasks is not easy. A firm may decide to use AI for administrative tasks, like automated record-keeping, and fence it off from legal work—at least for now. Or they could use AI for low-level legal work, like summarizing documents and enhancing du diligence.
Firms can take different positions for good reasons. The key is knowing the risks involved and communicating how the firm will insert humans in the loop to mitigate them.
Inevitably, we’ll see more lawyers and law firms endure reputational hits from their use of AI. Now is the time to imagine them and communicate a plan to clients to stay ahead of them.
Targeting talent
To remain competitive in the hunt for elite legal talent, large law firms today face increasing pressure to show young lawyers they practice law using cutting-edge technology. A survey of 800 knowledge workers across accounting, consulting, private capital and law by the software firm Intapp found a major gap between an intense desire to integrate AI into their daily work lives (91%) and those who currently leverage the technology (48%).
The sentiment stems in part from their personal use of AI. If their employers are not offering the same level of technology, they may look elsewhere.
These findings suggest a shift in growing comfort with AI. While communication around AI to employees may have initially been focused on assuring them that the technology would not replace them, the focus will increasingly need to address how firms are keeping up with the competition and allowing their employees to grow.
To drive excitement and adoption, law firms will need to find ways to tell stories internally that demonstrate how the technology helps lawyers do more high-level work by automating routine, time-consuming work.
Been here before
AI is hardly the first technological development to reshape the legal industry. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the internet forced major changes. Vast amounts of information and legal research online became available, speeding up processes that once required hours in law libraries.
As clients began to realize that certain legal information was available online, their expectations shifted. They wanted faster turnaround times and expected that some tasks, like basic legal research or document retrieval, would become cheaper or even automated. Meanwhile, young lawyers expected their employers to keep pace.
Then, as now, law firms had to communicate an approach to integrating technology to better serve clients that kept their lawyers on the cutting edge without sacrificing quality. The reputational risks around AI are more serious, but the fundamental balancing act is the same.
Andrew Longstreth is a writer with the international communications firm Infinite Global.
Reprinted with permission from the October 28, 2024 edition of the New York Law Journal © 2024 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.