Why AI adoption in law firms depends on invisible technology
Francesca Yardley, chief operating officer at Threads, reflects on insight shared at LPM Conference 2026 and why a people-focused approach to AI adoption is the most successful
AI has become one of the defining topics for the legal profession. Every week seems to bring another announcement about new capabilities, from drafting documents and summarising cases to reviewing contracts and analysing evidence. Yet despite the pace of innovation, one of the most interesting conversations I had at the recent LPM Conference had very little to do with what AI can actually do.
Instead, it centred on a much simpler question: why do some technologies become indispensable while others, despite offering obvious benefits, struggle to gain traction?
Why lawyers resist technology
Several delegates commented that introducing new technology remains one of the greatest challenges facing law firms. This isn’t because lawyers are unwilling to innovate or sceptical about technology. Rather, it reflects the reality of legal practice, where time is limited, workloads are demanding and established ways of working exist for good reason.
The legal profession depends on consistency. Solicitors spend years developing efficient working practices that allow them to balance client service, regulatory obligations and commercial pressures. These routines reduce cognitive effort, enabling lawyers to concentrate on legal advice rather than administrative tasks. Any technology that interrupts those routines, even with the promise of greater efficiency, immediately faces an uphill battle.
This perhaps explains why so many technology projects fail to achieve the levels of adoption originally anticipated. The problem is rarely the technology itself. More often, it is the additional effort required to use it. New logins, extra applications, duplicate data entry or unfamiliar workflows may each seem relatively minor in isolation, but together they create friction. In a profession where every additional administrative task competes with client work, even small inconveniences become significant barriers.
Rethinking what successful technology looks like
For that reason, I believe we sometimes ask the wrong questions when evaluating legal technology. We often focus on features, functionality and technical capability, when perhaps we should be asking something much simpler: how easily does this fit into the way our people already work?
The technologies that become indispensable are rarely those with the longest list of features. They are the ones that quietly remove effort without demanding behavioural change. Few of us consciously think about email search, automatic spell checking or cloud file synchronisation anymore. These technologies have become so embedded within our daily routines that we hardly notice them. Their success comes not from demanding attention, but from quietly making everyday tasks easier.
AI should follow the same principle.
Rather than asking lawyers to adopt entirely new ways of working, AI should automate repetitive administrative tasks, surface information when it is needed and integrate with the systems firms already rely upon. When technology works in the background, users benefit almost without thinking about it.
Removing work, not creating it
This is particularly relevant when considering how lawyers document client conversations. Producing accurate attendance notes remains an essential part of legal practice, supporting continuity, compliance and effective client service. However, the process is often inefficient. Lawyers either divide their attention between listening and writing during a call, or they spend additional time afterwards reconstructing conversations from memory. Both approaches consume valuable time, and both introduce opportunities for important details to be overlooked.
AI transcription provides an interesting example of technology working with existing behaviour rather than against it. Rather than requiring lawyers to create yet another record of the conversation, it captures the discussion automatically and produces a transcript and summary shortly afterwards. The objective remains exactly the same: maintaining an accurate record of client communications. The difference is that much of the administrative effort disappears.
This distinction is important because the greatest value of AI is not necessarily performing entirely new tasks. Often, its greatest contribution is removing work that professionals have always accepted as unavoidable. When technology quietly reduces administrative burden, lawyers are free to focus more of their time and attention on the activities that genuinely require legal expertise.
Designing around people
Perhaps this also changes how we should think about digital transformation more broadly. For many years, organisations introduced software and expected people to adapt their behaviour accordingly. Increasingly, successful technology is taking the opposite approach. It is being designed around existing habits, requiring minimal training and causing as little disruption as possible.
Ultimately, successful AI adoption has less to do with sophisticated algorithms than it does with human behaviour. The firms that gain the greatest value will not always be those investing in the most advanced technology, but those selecting solutions that fit naturally into the way their people already work.
The best technology is often the technology users barely notice. It quietly removes effort, supports better decision-making and allows professionals to focus on the work that matters most. If AI can achieve that, adoption becomes far less of a technology challenge and much more of a natural evolution in the way legal services are delivered.
