Why Some Lawyers Won’t Adopt Tech
Understanding “Why” Can Help Motivate Your Colleagues
Executive Summary
The legal profession has long been regarded as a conservative, precedent-driven field that lends itself poorly to rapid technological adoption. While industries such as finance, healthcare, and manufacturing have adopted digital transformation, lawyers and law firms have lagged. This whitepaper investigates why the legal sector is a late-stage technology adopter, the implications of this lag, and the transformational results that occur when technology is finally embraced. It also contrasts legal with other professions.
1. Cultural Conservatism: A Tradition-Bound Profession
The culture of law is rooted in precedent, hierarchy, and risk avoidance. Legal professionals are trained to operate within defined parameters and uphold established norms. As a result, innovation is often viewed with suspicion. Some have referred to this phenomenon as “irrational rejectionism,” where legal professionals resist legal tech innovations not based on technical merit, but because they disrupt tradition.
A 2023 report by Thomson Reuters revealed that only 23% of law firms consider themselves “early adopters” of technology. The result of this conservatism has been prolonged inefficiencies. Manual processes, such as contract drafting and discovery, persist even where automation is readily available.
When firms do embrace innovation, however, the transformation can be dramatic. Allen & Overy implemented a contract lifecycle management (CLM) system across its global offices. Within 12 months, the firm reported a 60% reduction in contract turnaround time and a measurable boost in client satisfaction.
2. Regulation and Risk Aversion
The legal industry is one of the most heavily regulated sectors, which naturally fosters a deep aversion to risk. Innovations in marketing or finance can tolerate failure, but errors in legal advice can have catastrophic consequences. As one General Counsel at a Fortune 100 company put it: “We are trained to avoid risk. Lawyers are not taught to disrupt; we are taught to find problems before they occur.”
This mindset means that many legal teams avoid adopting new technologies until long after those tools have been proven in other sectors. This delay often translates into higher costs and a missed opportunity to shape how legal technologies evolve.
A compelling case study is that of Latham & Watkins. Initially cautious about e-discovery, the firm eventually adopted Relativity and Everlaw. Today, their litigation teams report 80% reductions in document review time and a significant drop in human error rates.
3. Billable Hours as an Innovation Disincentive
The traditional billable hour model actively disincentivises efficiency. Since revenue is directly linked to time spent, tools that streamline tasks may be perceived as eroding profitability. Some lawyers report that billable requirements limit their ability to explore or adopt new technologies.
This economic model hinders legal innovation. Lawyers face a paradox: efficiency through technology can make them less profitable under traditional billing.
However, firms that have embraced value-based pricing have seen different results. Seyfarth Shaw, for example, implemented fixed-fee arrangements alongside automation tools in its labour and employment practice. The firm not only improved delivery times but also saw higher client retention and growth in its client base.
4. Lack of Technological Literacy and Training
Most legal education programs still offer minimal instruction in legal technology or digital fluency. This leaves new lawyers ill-equipped to evaluate or implement technological solutions.
This reluctance to engage can be mitigated through structured education and internal change management. Clifford Chance’s Tech Academy provides a clear example. The program offers mandatory training in legal tech and innovation to all staff, from junior associates to senior partners. As a result, the firm has accelerated its rollout of AI tools and is now recognised as one of the most tech-savvy law firms in the world.
5. Benchmarking Against Other Professions
Law is not alone in its challenges, but it is notably behind its peers. Finance began implementing AI and analytics in the early 2010s. Today, more than 80% of hedge funds utilise machine learning to inform their trading strategies. Healthcare, meanwhile, has integrated electronic health records (EHRs), decision-support systems, and predictive analytics to enhance diagnostics and patient outcomes.
The legal industry’s delayed response has not gone unnoticed by clients. In-house legal departments are increasingly deploying legal operations platforms and expecting law firms to keep pace. Companies that adopt legal analytics and workflow tools can achieve cost reductions of up to 30% and improved alignment between legal and business objectives.
Clients often give a version of the following feedback: “We stopped working with firms that couldn’t show us metrics or integrate with our systems. Legal advice is valuable, but so is our time.”
Conclusion: Turning Caution into Strategy
While the legal profession may be late to the technology game, the opportunity to leapfrog remains. All legal teams need to learn from the successes and failures of other sectors. Law firms and in-house legal teams need to embrace innovation more strategically to meet their clients’ needs. Cultural change, aligned pricing models, focused upskilling, and closer client collaboration will be central to this transformation.
