Artificial intelligence is transforming legal services, but after speaking with legal leaders across the industry, I believe that many organizations are focused on the wrong question. The conversation today often centers on technology: Which AI tools are being adopted? Which firms are investing the most? Which legal departments are ahead of the curve?
Those are important questions. But during a recent episode of Legal Leaders Exchange, a different theme emerged in my discussion with David Cambria, Vice President of Legal Operations at Epiq Advisory, and Eve Vlemincx, Course Facilitator and Coach at Stanford University Graduate School of Business. The organizations most prepared for the future are not necessarily those with the most AI tools. They are the ones with the clearest understanding of who they want to become and the value they want to deliver.
What is the difference between AI readiness and AI adoption?
One of the most compelling points from our conversation was the distinction between adopting AI and being AI-ready.
Many organizations view AI implementation as a technology project. They are looking for the right use case, the right platform, or the right vendor. But according to Eve, true readiness depends on much more than technology. It requires strategic clarity, leadership alignment, trust, effective change management, and a culture capable of adapting to new ways of working.
This resonates with what I am hearing throughout the legal market. Organizations often assume that technology will solve underlying operational challenges. In reality, AI tends to amplify whatever already exists. Strong processes become stronger. Inefficient processes become faster versions of inefficiency.
That is why AI readiness begins with fundamentals, not software.
Efficiency and transformation are not the same thing
Legal professionals understandably focus on efficiency. AI's ability to accelerate document review, legal research, contract analysis, and administrative work is impressive. But efficiency alone should not be mistaken for transformation.
As Eve observed, completing a memo in two hours instead of ten improves productivity. It does not necessarily change the way value is delivered. True transformation requires organizations to rethink how work is performed, how services are delivered, and how legal teams contribute to broader business objectives.
David reinforced this point by challenging the industry's search for a "perfect" AI use case. In his view, AI is not a procurement decision. It is a business design decision. Legal organizations that simply use AI to execute existing processes faster may miss much larger opportunities to redesign those processes altogether. For legal departments evaluating their AI strategies, a useful question is not "How can we do this faster?" but rather "Should we be doing this differently?"
How is the value of legal expertise is changing?
As routine work becomes increasingly automated, distinctions between law firms may become less about production capacity and more about judgment, insight, and strategic guidance. This shift has important implications for outside counsel management.
When I asked whether reducing associate hours through AI makes a law firm more valuable, David’s answer was nuanced. The real value comes from what firms do with the time and capacity AI creates. Firms can differentiate themselves by providing stronger risk analysis, broader business insight, deeper industry expertise, and more proactive guidance.
In other words, the future value proposition of legal service providers may not be based on how efficiently they produce legal work but on how effectively they help clients make decisions. For corporate legal departments, that means evaluating law firms through a broader lens than rates, staffing models, or AI adoption alone. Strategic thinking, business understanding, and partnership increasingly matter just as much.
How should legal departments start?
One of the most practical frameworks shared during our discussion came from David, who encouraged legal departments to evaluate work carefully.
Before organizations determine which technologies to purchase or which providers to engage, they should first understand the nature of the work they are trying to manage. Different categories of work require different solutions and different expectations of outside counsel.
When legal departments understand where work belongs, they can build stronger and more productive relationships with law firms, alternative service providers, and technology vendors. AI can accelerate that journey. It cannot define it.
For more on what AI is doing for legal departments today and where I see it going next, read my recent blog “The next phase of legal AI: Redesigning service delivery.”