I recently had a chat with Daya Naef, a New Orleans attorney who specializes in technology systems and leadership consulting, about the current level of AI understanding in the legal profession. We recorded the chat for my eDiscovery Channel and shortly after it was posted, Daya edited the transcript and notes to capture the main points of the discussion. I edited it a bit further and the result is below.
After nearly every talk or presentation we do, someone approaches us and asks: “I need to learn this AI stuff. Where do I start?”
While this sounds like a technology query, it really isn’t. After extensive discussions with practicing lawyers and business leaders, it is clear that lawyers are actually asking how to survive a period of intense, rapid change without losing their profitability, relevance, or control.
AI Is Not the Easy Button
Many practitioners mistakenly believe that AI will act as a “magical easy button” to eliminate firm chaos and boost efficiency. This assumption is dangerous because AI does not fix broken systems; it accelerates them. If a firm suffers from inconsistent workflows, siloed knowledge, or a lack of basic operational consistency, adding AI will only scale those existing flaws. True progress does not start in the server room, but in the conference room, where firms must address their workflows and governance before they ever “plug in” a new tool.
The Real Problem Is Identity, Not Technology
Resistance to AI often stems from professional identity rather than a lack of technical skill. Lawyers are trained to be experts whose primary currency is knowing the answers. Because uncertainty is uncomfortable, many attorneys are hesitant to admit they don’t understand AI, leading to the creation of two problematic groups. The first is laggards, who hope the technology simply goes away, and the second is reckless adopters, who connect every new tool to their systems after a single conference keynote. Successful firms avoid both extremes by slowing down to understand how their work actually happens.
Map the Work Before Automating
To prepare for AI, firms must answer a simple but difficult question: What does it take to complete a piece of legal work from start to finish? Most firms struggle to answer this because work has become “invisible” muscle memory — people know how to do the job but cannot explain the individual steps. If a workflow cannot be explained to a human, it cannot be explained to AI. The path to readiness involves unglamorous tasks like process mapping, metadata hygiene, naming conventions, and governance. These foundational elements are what separate firms that are truly prepared from those that are merely purchasing software.
The Hidden Risk: AI is Already Here
Adopting AI is not a future choice. For most firms, it has already happened. AI is currently operating within email platforms that summarize messages, search functions that recommend language, and research platforms that use generative tools. The core challenge is no longer whether to use AI, but rather a governance question: Do firms actually know where AI is already operating inside their existing systems?
Why Adoption is Slower Than Expected
Despite high expectations, AI adoption in legal has been slow because implementation requires difficult decisions and behavioral changes. While firms want tools, they actually need answers to questions regarding who owns AI decisions, what information is safe to share, and how performance will be measured. Without these decisions, buying software is often just “theater” rather than true progress.
The Danger of Overconfidence
While much is said about hallucinations and accuracy, the bigger risk is overconfidence. The danger lies in believing that AI outputs are automatically trustworthy. The future of legal work will likely require more checking and validation, potentially creating new roles focused entirely on oversight and governance.
A Strategy for Success
The best way to “learn AI” is not to start with the technology itself. Instead, firms should:
• Understand current workflows and identify where time is spent.
• Standardize repeatable processes.
• Build governance before attempting automation.
The firms that win this transition will be disciplined enough to build foundations while others chase shortcuts. Foundations are not exciting, but they are what will keep a practice standing during the storms of change.
Watch the full conversation with Daya Naef on my eDiscovery Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjEi2Rk7v-U
