Why Law Firms Are Failing to Explain AI Benefits to Inhouse Legal Teams

Law Firms Struggle to Communicate AI Benefits to In-House Teams

International law firm Pinsent Masons recently acknowledged a growing issue: law firms are failing to clearly explain to in-house legal teams the benefits of AI and how efficiency gains can be shared with clients. According to the firm, much of the current advice on AI only adds to the confusion around this complex technology.

These insights come from an article in Pinsent Masons' in-house publication, Out-Law, authored by partners involved in managed legal services and consulting. While these concerns are often discussed in the market, it's uncommon for a law firm to openly admit them.

The Gap Between Law Firms and In-House Legal Teams

In-house legal departments want to see tangible benefits when their external counsel uses AI. They also seek guidance on how to implement AI within their own teams. However, law firms don’t always align their AI expertise with the practical needs of in-house teams.

For example, law firms may leverage AI for large-scale tasks like M&A due diligence involving thousands of documents. But most in-house teams rarely face such volume. Their focus tends to be on speeding up routine contract review and redrafting of individual agreements, often on an ad hoc basis.

Challenges in Explaining AI Use Cases

Pinsent Masons highlights several challenges law firms face when advising clients about AI:

• Law firms often fail to clearly demonstrate the benefits AI brings to in-house teams or how cost savings might be shared.
• In-house legal teams usually deal with smaller volumes of documents, making large-scale AI applications less relevant.
• Many in-house lawyers are uncertain about which AI tools exist and how they could fit into their specific workflows.
• Presenting AI success stories focused on litigation or mass document review misses the mark for most corporate legal departments.

Such misalignment can cause more confusion than clarity, leaving in-house lawyers unsure how to adopt AI effectively. This risks AI being dismissed as irrelevant or overly complicated.

A Practical Starting Point for In-House Teams

The firm suggests in-house teams begin by familiarizing themselves with the AI tools available in the market. Many will already know generative AI like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot and may use them for research. But there are numerous other AI solutions designed to streamline administrative tasks and free up legal teams to focus on higher-value work.

Understanding the right AI tools and how they fit into day-to-day legal operations is key. This approach can help in-house teams unlock practical efficiencies without requiring large-scale implementations.

Final Thoughts

Pinsent Masons’ openness about these challenges adds valuable perspective to ongoing discussions about AI in legal practice. It highlights the need for clearer communication and more client-focused AI solutions.

For legal professionals interested in enhancing their AI skills and exploring practical applications, resources like Complete AI Training’s courses for legal professionals offer structured learning paths tailored to the legal sector.