Rapid Legal Technology versus slow lawyers – artificial lawyer

By Thomas Pfennig, transforming.egal.

For the last 18 months, I have had the privilege of operating squarely within the global legal technology and the transformation space of it from a place of the front row. Since my years helping the direction of digital transformation in the corporate world at the foundation of transforming.Legal, I have seen the full spectrum: ambition, innovation and inertia.

What is becoming increasingly clear, however, especially throughout Europe and the United States, is this: There is a bright detachment between what the legal technology industry produces and what legal professionals actually need or use.

In many corners of legal technology, we are obsessed with shaving milliseconds from response time, increasing the accuracy of the model by 2% or building ‘agents’ assistants who mainly take the human part in some areas, while internal tips are still processing contract requirements, digging through e -mail to find documents, and non -integrated systems.

According to recent research by Dilitrust, nearly 90% of legal professionals are charged with administrative duties, and only 12% say they can focus mainly on high -level work!

Let it sink.

For many users, legal technology tools are either very complex, poorly integrated, or simply do not solve real problems.

We are building Ferraris in a world where most legal teams are still learning to drive. Why? Because users and developers speak different languages.

Legal technology retailers follow the theoretical benefits in algorithmic performance, while tips inside the home simply want relief from the relentless delay of non -efficiency.

The finally 2025 report is also indicating: despite the spread of vehicles, less than 30% of lawyers inside the home think their department is also ‘good’ in reducing the administrative burden.

Meanwhile, the funds billed as revolutionary have been met with full skepticism or apathy.

Many are convenient, poorly integrated and insufficiently supported. In fact, the challenges of integration and change management remain two of the most cited barriers to adoptions for internal teams. This is what we in transforming.Legal we see all over the world.

Without a legal technician adapted on board and approximating the process with the flow of daily work, tools become shelf, not solutions.

And let’s be open on another front: it’s time for leading legal officials (Cous), General Advisor (GCS), and even CFO abandon outdated models of legal service delivery.

Often times, legal departments cannot measure the quality, efficiency or satisfaction of the client because they Lack of data infrastructure to set even an initial base.

We are postponing it in analyzing contracts without first realizing what ‘better’ in this context. How can we improve What do we do measure?

The inheritance framework -Actors of staff with increasingly large associates or external resources for costly legal firms-are not only unstable, but it is unnecessary.

The future requires a smaller, smarter work strength strengthened by significant technology.

And the future is closer than we think.

McKinsey reports that it will automate 23% of legal duties and reduce the need for human ability in some legal functions by up to 44%. In reviewing contracts, the agetic one can do up to 70% of the roles of the excess contract’s lawyer. However, this is not a punishment – it’s a door.

Liberated capacity is not about job losses; it is about creating value. Why spend millions on external employment or legal firm tariffs when it can immediately escalate internal capacity without increasing head calculation?

Leaders should see this not as a reason to intimidate, but an opportunity to look for time, budget and strategy space – for both their teams and for themselves.

To overcome the gap, legal technology must be driven by their own innovation or investors for the sake of innovation that matters to lawyers in all types of environments – including single practitioners.

That means:

• Metrics before mechanics: Ask users to determine the internal basics for efficiency, accuracy and satisfaction. Without data, no technology investment is then protected.
• Users on Engineers: Design for the real world, daily users in the midst of a chaotic day of work full of email, contract requirements and regulatory updates-not just saved legal firms, technology industry legal departments or large consultation innovation laboratories.
• Results on Results: Tools should not do something faster – they have to do it better and release the ability to think strategic. It has to save time, reduce mistakes, or reduce costs.

In my conversations with legal teams and compliance in industry and geography, the message is stable:

“We know he’s here, but we don’t know how and what to do with him yet.”

Legal professionals are not resistant to change – they are simply busy. And they need leaders who direct the simplification and change, as well as tools that give value from day one.

The promise of legal technology is true. For now, however, is Race in front of people who are supposed to help.

The future for the legal profession will be weaker, smarter and more activated with technology, leading to practical, measurable changes.

After all, it’s not about the fastest car in the market. It is about if people who need travel can even enter, start the engine and reach their destination.

We should not build Ferraris faster. We need to be licensed more people to drive.

–

About the author: Thomas Pfennig is the founder and CEO of Transforming.Legal and runs the Directorate of Law Technology Golt.

(This is a part of the educational thinking from Thomas expressing his personal views.)