In the world of legal technology, the spotlight often harshly focuses on the risks rather than the rewards. This skewed perspective not only clouds judgment but also hampers the ethical obligation of lawyers to embrace technological advancements. According to Comment 8 of Model Rule 1.1, lawyers are mandated not only to be aware of the risks associated with relevant technology but, importantly, the benefits too.

The legal community frequently cites Comment 8 when discussing the dangers and precautions necessary when integrating technology into practice. However, they inadvertently overlook the part of the comment that emphasizes the benefits, which notably appears first in the text. This oversight leads to a half-hearted adoption of technology, where fear overshadows potential.

At a recent legal AI conference, this trend was evident as speaker after speaker delineated the perils of AI use in legal practice. In contrast, only a few highlighted AI's ability to enhance efficiency, accuracy, and client service. This narrative inadvertently steers lawyers away from using AI tools independently, as vendors promote a message that such technologies should only be handled by professionals.

However, this cautious approach is not always necessary. AI, like any tool, requires basic understanding and prudent use. It’s crucial to verify AI-generated results and maintain client confidentiality. The risks, while real, should not overshadow the potential benefits such as cost efficiency, predictive analytics, and improved client outcomes.

A prime example of the misdirected focus can be found in a recent report where a French data scientist noted numerous 'hallucinations' in court filings from AI tools. Yet, it was not highlighted that most of these errors occurred when individuals, not lawyers, used the AI tools. This points to a need for professional oversight but doesn't necessarily indict the technology itself.

The ethical duty of competency in the legal field requires lawyers not only to guard against risks but also to actively seek and utilize technological benefits to serve their clients effectively. Avoiding AI for fear of potential pitfalls does a disservice to both clients and the legal profession.

To truly embrace AI, lawyers should start with simple applications and gradually expand their use as they become more comfortable with the technology. This method mirrors how one would learn any new skill — through practice and incremental challenges.

In conclusion, while understanding the risks of AI is crucial, focusing solely on these aspects without appreciating the benefits can hinder technological progress in legal practice. Lawyers must balance caution with the proactive adoption of AI to fulfill their ethical duties and better serve their clients. Let's simplify the approach: check the outputs, protect client confidences, and dive into the potential of AI to revolutionize legal practice.