Our Take
The book correctly identifies AI as a strategy problem, not a technology one, but offers process advice where practitioners need specific implementation frameworks.
Why it matters
Law firms face pressure to integrate AI while their billable hour models and partnership structures resist the operational changes required. The triangular relationship between firms, in-house teams, and vendors creates new coordination challenges that most legal leaders haven't addressed.
Do this week
Legal leaders: Map your current AI initiatives against your billing model by next Friday so you can identify where revenue incentives conflict with efficiency gains.
Three legal innovation experts publish AI strategy guide
Adam Curphey (Macfarlanes), Oz Benamram (former Simpson Thacher and White & Case), and Rebecca Pasternak (White & Case) released "Law Reinvented: Leading AI Transformation in Legal Practice." The book addresses strategic considerations including pricing, team building, data management, tool selection, and risk management for legal AI adoption.
The authors used Claude to create their first draft, then heavily edited the output. Benamram noted this approach reflects "the way we'd expect practitioners to use it," though he warned the editing workload should not be underestimated.
The book targets three audiences: law firms, in-house legal teams, and legal tech vendors. A dedicated chapter outlines how all three groups should collaborate, with Benamram stating "the triangular relationship will be the new norm" replacing traditional bilateral partnerships.
Firm strategy conflicts with AI efficiency gains
The core thesis challenges how legal organizations approach AI integration. "The AI strategy is part of your firm strategy," Benamram explained. "It's not a technology project. It's really rethinking how you work."
This creates tension with traditional law firm economics. Partners and C-suite executives often drive diverging initiatives that conflict with billable hour models, according to Pasternak. Firms optimized for "high volume, low value work" face different AI implications than specialist practices, Curphey noted.
The authors argue that avoiding AI adoption has shifted from passive delay to active strategic choice. "To bury your head in the sand isn't just waiting any more," Curphey said. "It's an active decision not to start."
Lawyers need weekend AI experimentation
Pasternak emphasized that legal competency now requires technology fluency: "They need to be fully familiar with the frontier market in this technology and what is available from a legal tech solution so that they can speak to the capabilities of what this technology can do."
This means hands-on experimentation outside billable hours. "That might mean experimenting on the weekends or after hours. Of course, not with client data, but maybe dummy documents, just so they know the full capabilities," she recommended.
Each chapter includes reflection questions designed to help readers map concepts to their specific organizations. The approach combines "practical thinking and an overview of the landscape," according to Curphey, rather than prescriptive solutions.