Blogs

Please enjoy this blog authored by Virginia Ong, Legal Innovation Manager, Greenberg Traurig. 

In my work as a legal innovator at a large law firm, I spend a lot of time testing new technology. The field is full of conversations about AI, automation, integrations, workflows, and transformation. Legal technology professionals can easily get excited about new features and trends. Most lawyers don't. That's not a criticism. In fact, it's probably the reason many lawyers continue to be successful despite the endless stream of technology being introduced into the profession.

When a lawyer is racing to meet deadline, respond to a client, negotiate a deal, or prepare for a hearing, they are not thinking about whether a tool has the latest AI model or the most sophisticated feature set. They are thinking: “Will this tool help me complete my work faster, better, and with less risk?”

I have seen legal technology from both sides. I practiced as an attorney before moving into legal innovation, where I now evaluate tools, support adoption, and see what happens after the demonstration. One thing is clear: excitement may open the door, but a tool lasts only if it solves a real problem.

To understand what lawyers want from legal technology in the age of AI, I spoke with two attorneys who have practiced in different environments. Both focused less on features and more on three priorities: trust, usability, and meaningful time savings.

Relevance Over Novelty
Steve Delchin, attorney and legal ethics innovator, put it simply: lawyers are not asking, "What is the most advanced tool available?" They are asking, "Will this help me serve my clients better, reduce risk, save time, and fit into the way I already work?" 

His observation captures one of the biggest misconceptions in legal technology. It is easy to assume adoption is driven by innovation when in reality, it is usually driven by relevance. Lawyers generally are not looking for technology for technology's sake. They are looking for solutions to specific problems.

Spencer Harris, who recently moved from private practice to an in-house role, wants a tailored experience. He noted that lawyers remain skeptical of platforms that claim to "do it all." Some of the most popular legal tools have unremarkable interfaces and aging technology yet survive because they solve one problem exceptionally well. As Harris explained, "Lawyers are looking for a tool that will solve a specific problem in a specialized practice, first and foremost." The industry often rewards larger feature sets, but the most successful product may be the one that does one thing extremely well.

Less Friction
The same principle applies when lawyers say technology should be "simple." The word is common in legal innovation but rarely defined. Both conversations made clear that simplicity does not mean fewer capabilities. It means less friction.

Delchin described simplicity as “reducing cognitive load.” Lawyers already manage complex facts, legal authorities, deadlines, business needs, and client expectations. They do not need software with a steep learning curve. The best tools, he explained, are intuitive enough to "fade into the background." They provide the right information at the right time, letting lawyers focus on legal judgment rather than the technology.

Harris approached the question from a different angle, focusing on transparency. As he put it, "Lawyers have no tolerance for a tool that hides the ball. Show me the features, show me where the answers are coming from, and prove that the answers are reliable. Links that go directly to source material are amazing and build credibility..." 

That point matters for legal technology vendors and innovation teams. Lawyers do not just want answers. They want confidence. If a research tool provides a conclusion but requires ten minutes of source hunting and citation checking, it may save time on one task while creating work elsewhere. This tension is especially visible with generative AI.

From AI Excitement to Practical Value
The legal profession's relationship with AI has changed quickly. Early conversations centered on curiosity and excitement. Today, they are more practical and focused on specific use cases.

I have watched that shift firsthand. The first wave focused on what generative AI might make possible. Then came the harder phase: getting lawyers to use the tools consistently. Now the market is asking a more grounded question: which tool is best for this task?

Delchin noted that organizations are increasingly weighing efficiency gains against the cost of AI tools, especially as more vendors adopt consumption-based pricing. The conversation is no longer solely about capability. It is now about economics, governance, and measurable value.

Harris observed a similar shift, noting that some of the early optimism has given way to more rigorous cost-benefit analysis. His summary was refreshingly direct: “…lawyers are starting to ask whether the juice is worth the squeeze."  That question may ultimately determine which AI tools survive because while many products can generate excitement, far fewer generate lasting adoption. 

Actual Time Savings
Every legal innovation professional has seen an impressive demonstration. The AI drafts a memo in seconds, summarizes thousands of pages, and answers questions instantly. The audience approves. Six months later, nobody is using it.

In my work, what happens between the demonstration and sustained adoption is often the most revealing part of an evaluation. Lawyers return to a tool when it clearly improves a task they already need to complete, not simply because the underlying technology is impressive.

As Delchin observed, if a lawyer spends ten minutes using an AI tool and twenty minutes checking its work, the promised efficiency gains evaporate. The tools that become indispensable are the ones that save real time, fit naturally into existing workflows, and eliminate effort rather than merely shifting it elsewhere. 

Harris highlighted another often-overlooked challenge: voice and tone. Many AI-generated outputs still require translation before a lawyer feels comfortable using them. Some are overly verbose. Others are too simplistic. Some sound authoritative without actually sounding like a lawyer. At a certain point, “translating” the output becomes more cumbersome than creating the work from scratch. 

Tech as a Trusted Copilot
One theme ran through both interviews: preserving lawyer judgment. Despite headlines about AI replacing lawyers, Delchin and Harris agreed on what practitioners want. They want assistance, not replacement.

Delchin argued that lawyers need a trusted “copilot”, not an autopilot. Professional and ethical obligations still require lawyers to exercise independent judgment, and the most successful technologies will be the ones that support that responsibility rather than attempt to bypass it. 

Harris echoed the same idea. Regardless of how advanced technology becomes, lawyers still need to understand the substance of the work product. Whether standing in court, negotiating a transaction, advising a board, or counseling a client, human understanding remains essential. Technology may accelerate that understanding, but it cannot eliminate the need for it. 

What Will Matter Next
Both attorneys expect many current AI capabilities to become standard. Drafting, summarization, information retrieval, and document analysis will become expected rather than differentiating features. The same three priorities will remain: tools lawyers can trust, that fit their work, and that save meaningful time.

From where I sit, this is the direction the market is already taking. Broad AI platforms may remain useful, but lasting adoption will increasingly depend on focused tools that fit a defined use case, produce reliable work, and make the lawyer's job easier.

Which brings us back to the original question: what do lawyers actually want from legal technology?

The answer is simpler than the legal innovation field sometimes makes it. Lawyers do not want another platform, dashboard, login, workflow, or AI assistant. They want fewer obstacles between themselves and the work that matters. They want technology they can trust, that fits their work, and that saves time without creating new tasks. The real measure is not how quickly a tool produces an answer, but how quickly a lawyer can use it with confidence. A tool that drafts in seconds but requires extensive checking has merely shifted the work from creation to verification. That hidden burden often separates an impressive demonstration from a tool lawyers adopt. Lawyers do not need the fanciest tool. They need one they will use. And if someone can finally solve time entry capture along the way, lawyers everywhere may give a standing ovation.