AI's integration into legal workflows seems inevitable, akin to how Ernest Hemingway described change: first gradual, then sudden. While AI's role in law firms is not inherently good or bad, its increasing capability to autonomously manage business processes presents both transformative potential and significant risks.

The primary question that arises is: How human should modern legal workflows remain? Recent discussions among three law firms and a legal-tech company co-founder revealed several themes. AI adoption is becoming standard, demanding new forms of cross-functional collaboration and pushing innovative momentum. The pace of AI integration is accelerating, driven by both leadership and grassroots experimentation.

One firm, Stradley Ronon, emphasizes controlling the influx of AI tools through clear communication and collaborative strategies between their knowledge management team and practice groups. They have also invested in practical training through partnerships with legal tech vendors, offering a certification program that includes hackathons and intensive support with ethical and client communication aspects.

AI's role in legal firms triggers a critical reflection on the type of firm one wishes to become. Should firms aim to deliver legal work end-to-end with minimal human oversight soon? This pressing dilemma requires strategic foresight today, shaping how AI tools and vendor partnerships are evaluated.

At Baker McKenzie, AI decisions are aligned with a firmwide vision that integrates client needs with content, data, and expertise strategies. This approach ensures that their data and systems are optimized for both compliance and efficiency, ready for AI enablement. Success is measured by the ability to deliver high-quality, insight-driven services.

K&L Gates has taken steps to foster strong collaborative networks across the firm, leveraging diverse task forces and user groups to engage a broad spectrum of legal professionals in innovation practices. These efforts are focused on keeping AI initiatives grounded and human-centered.

The discussion also considered two hypothetical extremes: Type X firms, which rely heavily on AI, minimizing human involvement, and Type Y firms, which prioritize human expertise over technology. Both models have their pitfalls; Type X might face commoditization, while Type Y could struggle with recruitment and adapting to technological advancements.

A more sustainable model, Type A, balances human expertise with technological advantages. These firms employ AI for repetitive tasks while leveraging human skills for complex problem-solving. This model aims for continuous adaptation and strategic use of technology to enhance the human elements that remain crucial in legal work.

Firms are advised to start by assessing their long-term AI vision, focusing on integrating AI where it adds significant value while closely controlling its application in critical areas. This approach not only leverages AI's strengths but also preserves the indispensable human qualities such as empathy, relationship-building, and critical thinking.

In conclusion, as AI becomes a staple in legal workflows, firms must navigate its integration thoughtfully, ensuring that while they embrace technological advancements, they do not lose sight of the human touch that defines the core of legal practice.