Legal technology is settling into a more ordinary phase. Fewer sweeping promises. More tools aimed at specific parts of a lawyer’s day.
Over the next few years, change will show up in small ways: faster first drafts, easier document comparison, better internal reuse of past work. None of this replaces legal judgment. It does shift where time is spent and where mistakes tend to creep in.
Preparation is less about buying the right tool and more about tightening how work already gets done.
Most legal work already happens in repeatable steps, even if no one labels them. Pulling relevant facts. Extracting rules. Comparing documents. Editing for clarity. Checking consistency.
Technology is improving at assisting with those steps individually.
A practical way to prepare is to write down the actual sequence of tasks for common work in your practice. Not aspirational descriptions. The real steps, including back-and-forth and cleanup work. This makes it easier to spot where a tool saves time and where it creates risk.
Firms that skip this step often adopt tools that feel impressive and deliver little.
AI tools increasingly perform better when they operate on a lawyer’s own materials rather than public examples. That makes internal documents more valuable than before.
Practical steps here are mundane but effective:
-
Identify a small set of strong examples for common documents.
-
Keep them updated as law and preferences change.
-
Add short notes explaining why a document worked or what problem it solved.
This supports training today and positions the firm to use technology more effectively tomorrow.
When drafts arrive faster, review becomes a bottleneck. Many teams are not set up for that shift.
One adjustment is separating review stages more explicitly. Early review focuses on structure and substance. Later review focuses on polish. Collapsing those stages invites missed issues and inefficient feedback.
Another adjustment is asking for a short explanation with any AI-assisted draft: what sources were used, what assumptions were made, what the drafter is unsure about. This surfaces issues faster than editing in silence.
Junior lawyers often learn by imitation. That becomes harder when tools generate fluent text without revealing the reasoning behind it.
Training can respond by making the process visible. Ask associates to describe how they arrived at a draft. Have them compare two alternative approaches and explain the tradeoffs. Require them to flag where they relied on technology and where they did not.
These practices do not slow training. They make weaknesses easier to diagnose.
Many tools advertise breadth. What matters more is whether a tool reliably removes a specific point of friction in your workflow.
A useful evaluation question is simple: Which task takes longer than it should, even when the lawyer knows what they are doing? Tools that meaningfully reduce that drag tend to earn their keep. Tools that merely add options often do not.
Running short pilots with defined tasks produces better information than firm-wide rollouts based on demos.
Over the next few years, the most effective lawyers will not be the ones with the longest tech stack. They will be the ones who integrate a small number of tools into well-understood processes.
That requires discipline more than enthusiasm.
Legal tech is not moving toward a single breakthrough moment. It is moving toward incremental gains that compound when paired with clear workflows, good internal materials, and thoughtful supervision. Lawyers who prepare along those lines will feel the benefits without absorbing unnecessary risk.
Joe Regalia
Write.law co-founder Joe Regalia combines his experience as both practitioner and professor to create exciting new ways to teach legal skills. Learn more about Joe
Get writing and other legal practice tips delivered to your inbox every other Thursday.
Thanks for joining!
We’ve sent a welcome email to your inbox.
