I spent 17 hours at a legal conference. These were the two questions haunting lawyers about AI.

At this week's Legalweek conference, the legal community found itself immersed in discussions about artificial intelligence, a topic that dominated panels and booth presentations alike. However, a fundamental question echoed through the event: How can lawyers be encouraged to adopt AI technologies? The landscape of Big Law is beginning to mirror trends seen in the tech sector, where companies like Atlassian and Block have already linked workforce reductions to efficiency gains driven by AI. This shift raises concerns about job security, as the potential for increased productivity could lead to fewer employment opportunities. With billions in investments aimed at transforming professional services through AI, the reality within law firms reveals a complex picture, as clients push for faster and more affordable services while investors anticipate returns on significant legal tech investments. Held at New York City's Javits Center, Legalweek has become a barometer for the impact of generative AI on the legal industry, which is inherently cautious. This year marked my second attendance, and the technological demonstrations were noticeably more polished. AI 'agents' were showcased throughout, marketed as digital assistants capable of handling tasks that previously required a junior associate and a lot of caffeine. Despite the advances, the conference highlighted a stark contrast between excitement and actual adoption. When Microsoft’s Steven Abrahams asked attendees to indicate their use of contract review automation software—a prime application for large language models—only a handful of hands were raised. The warnings from industry leaders were clear: firms must adapt or risk losing clients. Emma Dowden, COO of Burges Salmon, emphasized that failure to change could endanger revenue streams. In a thought-provoking moment, in-house attorney Derek Morales from Macquarie Capital was asked if 'AI maturity' would influence future choices for outside counsel. He indicated that current practices are under scrutiny, criticizing firms that boast about hiring innovation leaders yet hesitate to invest in AI tools. As discussions unfolded, the hesitance surrounding AI use was attributed to fear among lawyers. Dowden pointed out that many legal professionals are concerned about the implications of automation on their jobs, the potential reduction in billable hours, and their understanding of the technology's intricacies in front of skeptical clients. This anxiety often manifests as resistance to adopting new tools. Interestingly, the assumption that younger lawyers would embrace AI more readily does not always hold true. Sarah Eagen from Cleary Gottlieb noted that even associates, who might be expected to welcome automation, often view it as a threat to their career paths. In other industries where AI is more established, job reductions have been framed as an expected evolution in business operations, emphasizing the need for fewer personnel as workflows accelerate. Legal professionals tend to gather comprehensive information before making decisions, and speakers suggested that proper training in AI tools could facilitate their adoption by helping lawyers understand the associated risks and guidelines. Ian Nelson, leading Hotshot, pointed out a troubling trend: many law firms neglect to provide adequate AI training, often delaying it until after a tool is licensed. This short-sighted approach overlooks the fact that some lawyers may experiment with AI tools regardless, and when training occurs, it often lacks broader context about risks and firm policies. As the week progressed, a critical question emerged alongside the initial inquiry about AI adoption: If AI is capable of delivering superior and more cost-effective legal services, at what point does a refusal to utilize such tools become a case of malpractice? This concern was raised by corporate lawyer Michael Pierson during a panel discussion, where he reflected on the importance of incorporating AI into everyday legal practices to enhance client service and ensure high-quality outcomes.