Law360 Canada (July 16, 2026, 1:08 PM EDT) --

Suzana Popovic-Montag

Generative artificial intelligence is currently reshaping professional services, including the practice of law. For law firms that have not yet made the leap, incorporating AI into private practice may feel daunting. Challenges can include identifying where AI can deliver meaningful value, being willing to experiment with proven workflows and selecting the “right” AI platforms. Rather than approach AI adoption as a technology initiative, this article advocates for treating AI as a business improvement initiative by deliberately targeting specific inefficiencies and implementing AI incrementally to realize measurable benefits.

Beyond AI adoption, law firms should regularly assess their AI tools and maintain sufficient flexibility to switch platforms as the technology evolves. Maintaining AI flexibility is also important because it may become salient to recruiting in the future, particularly when hiring lawyers trained on AI.

Getting started with AI by tackling existing inefficiencies

There are a variety of ways for firms to initiate AI adoption. Rather than begin by researching different AI platforms, a more effective strategy for law firms is to identify their biggest operational inefficiencies and then evaluate which AI products could be used to tackle them. AI delivers the greatest value when applied to repetitive, time-intensive work that consumes professional resources but does not require legal judgment. Deploying AI to target such inefficiencies is not only practical but also enables firms to evaluate the impact of AI adoption in a meaningful way, rather than simply get lost in the hype of generative AI.

Using AI to improve client consultations is often an excellent starting point for firms. This is a necessary workflow for most private practice firms that often consumes significant resources but does not generate revenue unless the prospective client retains the firm. Without the help of AI, preparing for a consultation can be quite time-consuming — it may take counsel hours to review documents provided by the prospective client to become familiar with their personal situation and be prepared to offer advice.

AI tools can help streamline this process by reviewing and organizing the prospective client’s information. For example, AI can efficiently summarize the documents, identify missing information, flag concerning transactions, highlight anomalies and identify issues requiring a lawyer’s judgment. Simply put, AI can help lawyers come to a consultation better prepared and better equipped to provide legal advice.

Implementing AI to create a consultation workflow is also a great way to start using AI, as these workflows often require fewer procedural changes than more complex legal processes, making them an accessible entry point for firms beginning their AI journey.

Building momentum to expand AI implementation

Rather than force firm-wide adoption of AI in multiple areas, it is advisable to start with one narrowly focused AI initiative. AI adoption often accelerates once lawyers begin to experience measurable improvements in their daily work. Additional opportunities for AI implementation can include improving the intake process, file management, litigation preparation and document review.

That said, lawyers may also be reluctant to experiment with long-established processes and proven workflows in their firm. This is natural — historically, the practice of law has prized caution and risk mitigation. However, to succeed with AI implementation, it is important for lawyers to realize that experimentation is a necessary part of the process, requiring a shift in mindset.

When expanding the integration of AI in a law firm, administrative tasks are a great place to focus. AI excels at tasks like summarizing documents, creating chronologies, comparing documents, finding facts in uploaded materials and organizing information. AI can also assist with some legal tasks, such as creating preliminary drafts of legal documents and conducting preliminary legal research; however, it is important to remember that AI is not a lawyer and cannot exercise judgment, run a file or counsel a client. The lawyer should always remain in the driver’s seat.

Factors to consider when selecting an AI platform

Once a firm has decided on which inefficiencies to target using AI, it will be necessary to select an AI platform to work with. When selecting a platform, lawyers should consider each platform’s respective features, along with priorities specific to the practice of law.

For example, confidentiality ought to be a priority when selecting AI tools, as lawyers are professionally obligated to protect the confidentiality of client information. Counsel ought to consider where the data provided will be stored, otherwise known as data residency and data retention, and be aware of their obligations around confidentiality under their respective Rules of Professional Conduct (in Ontario, for example, see the Law Society of Ontario, Rules of Professional Conduct, r. 3.3).

Another priority to consider is whether a platform can be integrated into the firm’s existing infrastructure, such as document management systems, litigation databases, billing systems, practice management software and communications platforms. Excellent integration may provide more value to a law firm than superior AI features, particularly if a platform cannot be integrated into a firm’s workflows.

Customer service may also be salient when choosing an AI system. Working with small vendors may be advantageous for law firms, as compared to working with large platforms, insofar that small vendors may be willing to customize their products for clients or may provide law firms with better support.

AI integration planning and avoiding organizational lock-in

Once AI has been incorporated into a firm’s operations, attention ought to shift to a more nuanced concern — maintaining organizational AI flexibility. This term refers to a firm’s ability to migrate to new AI platforms. With the rate at which technology is evolving, it is important to prioritize AI flexibility so firms can keep pace with technological change. Today’s AI platform may not be tomorrow’s platform.

For this reason, it is advisable to refrain from entering long-term commitments with AI platforms. Annual subscriptions with AI platforms are strategically preferable over discounted, multi-year contracts, notwithstanding the additional cost.

Law firms should also have a strategy in place for switching AI platforms. For example, when migrating to a new platform, the firm ought to plan for a temporary reduction in productivity. Firms should also budget for additional training so staff can learn how to utilize the new platform. Cutting costs by reducing training is not wise — not only is there a risk that the firm may end up utilizing only a fraction of an AI platform’s capabilities, but a lack of training may also undermine employee engagement. In fact, staff may be resistant to switching platforms, particularly if the firm invested heavily in training on the prior platform and it has become embedded in the organization.

The potential impact of AI flexibility on recruiting

In the future, recruiting may also be impacted by the extent to which a firm has embraced AI and organizational AI flexibility. It is only a matter of time until law firms start hiring lawyers trained on AI. When deciding where to practice, the best candidates may prefer firms that not only have an AI infrastructure in place but also prioritize a culture of innovation and experimentation. Alternatively, recruits may be looking for firms that offer specific AI tools or resources, or that would be willing to acquire new AI tools.

Similarly, law firms may also want to revise their current hiring model to take candidates’ AI fluency into consideration, in addition to candidates’ grades and where they studied law. When assessing AI fluency, relevant considerations could include candidates’ past experience with AI, their curiosity and adaptability, and thoughts on workflows and systems.

Conclusion

When implementing AI in a law firm, an ambitious project will rarely be the place to start. To ensure that the impact of embracing AI is quantifiable, it is advisable to begin with small, targeted improvements, such as utilizing AI to enhance client consultations or make intake more efficient. As counsel’s confidence in AI grows and the value that this technology can deliver becomes clearer, AI adoption will likely expand. Post-AI implementation, it will be important to prioritize organizational AI flexibility, so the firm can switch AI platforms as technology evolves and potentially entice recruits who are AI natives.

There are also options for law firms that want external assistance with AI adoption or implementation — law firms do not have to navigate AI alone. Service providers like Cnsl.ai can help legal professionals evaluate AI platforms, navigate procurement, negotiate vendor agreements, assess integration opportunities and develop AI strategies tailored to the firm’s needs. For firms with limited time or internal resources, working with an experienced adviser can help streamline the adoption process and position the firm to maximize the value of its AI investments.

Suzana Popovic-Montag is the managing partner of Hull & Hull LLP and practises exclusively in the areas of estates, trusts, capacity and fiduciary litigation. She has extensive experience in contentious proceedings, including will challenges, passings of accounts, fiduciary litigation, will interpretation and dependant’s relief proceedings and is also a specialized estate mediator (having been trained at Harvard Law School) with Hull Estate Mediation Inc., focusing on pre-death and post-death estate resolutions. In addition to her private practice, she is an adjunct professor at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, LexisNexis Canada, Law360 Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Richard Skinulis at Richard.Skinulis@lexisnexis.ca or call 437-828-6772.