"A year or so ago, most legal departments were still testing. AI pilots. Workflow trials. Small process experiments. Everyone was learning cautiously. The stakes were relatively low, and the work was labeled "innovation," which made imperfection forgivable. Then something shifted. Those same pilots became part of day-to-day delivery, and the business started relying on them. Sometimes intentionally, because early results looked good."
"Once an experiment becomes part of daily work, the question changes. It is no longer "Does it work?" It becomes "Can we defend how it works?" and "Can we sustain it when the pressure rises?" That's where many legal teams find themselves now: early wins behind them, but no reliable way to produce the same result twice at scale. Not because the work is too hard, but because the surrounding structure was never meant to carry ongoing demand."
Legal departments moved from cautious AI pilots and small workflow experiments to business-reliant production use, exposing gaps in operating maturity. Pilots tolerated inconsistency and instinctive compensation; sustained day-to-day delivery demands consistent inputs, clear ownership, and defensible processes. The shift reframes success questions from "Does it work?" to "Can we defend how it works?" and "Can we sustain it when pressure rises?" Many teams lack repeatable methods to reproduce early wins at scale, creating operational risk when compensations that supported pilots become inconsistent under continuous demand. Maturity requires consistent intake, clear judgment ownership, and metrics that demonstrate value rather than activity.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]