Investing in AI? Strategy Principles Say Go Lightly and Later
From a strategy perspective, there is no rush for law firms to invest in AI, Hugh Simons argues.
May 18, 2018 at 12:24 PM
3 minute read
How strongly and quickly should law firms invest in artificial intelligence and other next generation technologies? Heavily and now, say the technology providers; lightly and later say the principles of strategy.
In strategy, we think of firms' offers to clients having two distinct elements: hygiene and differentiators. Hygiene are those elements that clients simply expect all firms to provide to the required level. Hence, these don't distinguish one potential provider from another. The term comes from how diners view hygiene in a restaurant. In law today, the term encapsulates things like billing systems, knowledge of the law, and smart associates—they're just table stakes.
Differentiators are, well, different. They are the elements of a firm's offer that clients perceive as being different across law firms and where such differences are of value to a client so that they incline a client to choose a particular firm or pay a higher price. As an aside, lawyers sometimes forget about the “and” in the forgoing definition. Having a unique culture, a single-tier partnership, and offices around the globe are all ways in which a firm may be different from others but they're not differentiators because they don't typically resolve the client's issue in a better way and thus are not perceived as of particular value. Differentiators also need to be sustainable. A differentiator that can be replicated by a rival tomorrow isn't much of a differentiator.
From a strategy perspective, the question about AI investment centers on whether or not AI can create sustainable differentiation for a law firm. I don't see how it can. The AI systems will be provided by third-party vendors selling to all firms. Anything special one law firm can offer clients today will be offered by all firms tomorrow. The window for being differentiated, if any, is short.
But what about 'first-mover advantage'? Well, lawyers should understand that when strategists talk of first-mover advantage they're typically being ironic (or worse). More specifically, in a context where the underlying technology is being provided by a third-party, open-to-all provider, there's no such advantage to be had because being first doesn't allow one to build up anything sustainable in the way of distinctiveness.
So, the approach for law firms should be to invest in AI at the same intensity and pace as they would invest in any other hygiene aspect of their offer. It's not nil, and it's not never, but there's little to be gained from leading the pack. Rather, stay with the pack and invest as much, as quickly (or as little, as slowly) as everyone else.
Hugh A. Simons, Ph.D. is formerly a senior partner at The Boston Consulting Group and former chief operating officer at Ropes & Gray. He welcomes readers' reactions at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllStrategic Pricing: Setting the Billable Hour at the Intersection of Psychology, Feedback and Growth
'Rethink Everything' or 'Optimize What's Working'? The Right Law Firm Strategy
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250