Posted by Sarah Murphy, general manager international at Legal Futures Associate Clio
Murphy: Better workflow design is vital
City AM recently reported that London is fighting to claim the title of ‘global capital of legal AI’. Twenty-five per cent of the top UK and US law firms are basing their global senior AI hires in London, massively surpassing just 10% in New York.
This ambition reflects the wider momentum of legal AI investment and uptake in the UK. In fact, according to the latest Legal Insights Report from Clio, 89% of legal professionals in the UK and Ireland now use AI in some capacity.
However, it’s crucial we remember that adoption alone does not create value. More than a third (37%) of legal professionals struggle to fit new tools into how they already work, signalling a disconnect between adoption and operational readiness.
If AI is introduced haphazardly rather than strategically, it can quickly become another expensive layer of technology that only increases costs, introduces risk and delivers little in return. Successful adoption requires adapted workflows, the right tools and final decisions that remain inherently human.
Strategy over speed
Poorly planned AI adoption comes with a number of costs.
For example, teams rush to approve shiny tools in the name of ‘AI innovation’, but without a clear integration roadmap, they only accumulate technical debt. It can be a challenge to gauge potential benefits against upfront price, and while most users (67%) see a positive revenue impact, a third report that subscription overheads are a temporary drag on the bottom line.
Being too slow carries its own risk. In the UK and Ireland, 17% of firms have no formal policy in place and 5% say AI is not allowed at all, boosting the risk of ‘shadow AI’ – the unauthorised use of unvetted tools.
When firms lose visibility into how AI is being used, confidential client information can enter public models and AI-generated legal authorities can go unchecked. The reputational damage of these problems is considerably high.
Research also indicates firms incur significant losses when they stick with tech they see as ‘good enough’ for too long; 50% of firms in the UK and Ireland are losing over 44 days of work due to inefficient or outdated systems every year – the equivalent of over 350 billable hours and as much as £100,000 per lawyer annually.
The question for leaders in legal is not whether to introduce AI. Rather, it’s how to implement it strategically.
Turning AI into business value
So, how can law firms prioritise strategy and reduce these costs? There are three key considerations here.
The first is better workflow design. Right now, only 27% of firms have embedded AI universally across their organisation and workflows. Yet workflows should be as important as tool selection.
A good place to start is by mapping where everyone spends the most time, where work slows down and where repetitive tasks can be automated. In practice, this could mean anything from using AI software to simplify client billing, to a legal research database that uses AI to support search and natural-language response.
The second is ensuring that the right tools are being introduced for the right purposes. This is particularly relevant for any tools to support research, as data quality is non-negotiable.
Legal work relies on authority, context, validation and in many cases, jurisdictional understanding. A generic model may not be able to distinguish properly between a majority judgment and a dissenting opinion, reiterating the importance of data specificity.
The third and final consideration is ensuring human-in-the-loop remains a vital part of the process. Legal professionals need to prioritise transparency: check where AI-generated outputs come from, review the underlying sources and validate the reasoning.
AI should not operate in a silo. It’s crucial we remember that legal work is a chain of events, and while AI may replace or accelerate some links of that chain, the final links (judgement, discernment, counselling, advocacy and accountability) remain pointedly human.
The legal profession has already moved beyond asking whether AI belongs in practice. The new question is now to embed AI thoughtfully, with responsible governance in place.
If London is to become the world’s legal AI capital, UK firms should design workflows around technology and give lawyers tools they can trust, supported by quality data and human oversight.
Leave a Comment