In-house legal teams are under more pressure to do more with less than at any point in the past decade. AI is part of the answer — but only if you know how to evaluate it.
If you're an in-house lawyer, you're now both a user and a buyer of AI tools. Vendors will tell you their product solves your problems; outside counsel will tell you their AI-augmented practice is the answer; your CFO will ask why you can't reduce outside spend.
The Buyer's Position
The right starting point is to be specific about what problems you actually want to solve. "Use more AI" is not a strategy. "Reduce contract review turnaround for non-strategic agreements from two weeks to two days" is.
Evaluating Tools
When evaluating an AI tool, the questions that matter are mostly not about the model. They're about the data path, the accuracy on your specific use case, the integration with your existing systems, and the contractual protections you have if something goes wrong.
Ask for a pilot. Run it on real work. Measure the results against your current process. Most tools that demo well don't survive that test — and the ones that do are the ones worth buying.
Evaluating Firms
When evaluating an AI-augmented outside firm, the questions are similar. How does the firm protect your data? Who reviews the outputs? How is the work priced? What happens if there's a hallucination in a brief?
A serious firm has answers. A firm that's using AI as a marketing claim doesn't.
Common Pitfalls
The most common pitfall we see in-house teams encounter is over-trusting an early win. A tool that performs well on the first ten contracts may regress on the eleventh. Build in ongoing quality measurement — don't treat the pilot as the final exam.
The second-most-common pitfall is under-investing in change management. New tools change workflows; workflows are made of people; people need time and support to adopt them. Budget for that.
