The wrong starting point.

The most difficult part of deploying AI across a law firm is not choosing between Harvey, Legora, Claude, or other existing tools. It is that most firms treat that choice as the starting point, when it is actually closer to the final step.

Each of these tools has its drawbacks. They cost money. They have limits. They take time to learn, and adoption is challenging. Those are genuine problems, and weighing them is part of the work we do. But none of them is the problem.

The real mistake is choosing a solution before defining the problem. "Let's bring in Harvey" is a technology-first decision. It answers a question the firm has not yet asked. It assumes the firm already knows what its goals are for AI implementation, how that work will create value, and how it connects to the unique manner in which your firm practices law. For most firms, that strategic blueprint simply doesn't exist.

What starting with the technology produces

Start with the tool and you inherit a generic, mass-market workflow that your competitors are buying too, not a system tailored to your unique practice. To your partners, the tool feels imposed rather than like an extension of how they work. The economics that actually govern the firm go unexamined. Adoption stalls, but not because the model is weak. It stalls because nothing was built around the people who were supposed to use it.

This is the pattern behind most failed implementations. The technology works in the demo and dies in the firm, because the technology was never the hard part.

What starting with the need looks like

Starting with the need reverses the sequence. It begins by codifying how the firm actually practices, and how it actually makes money. Next comes the decision of what should be automated, what should be assisted, and what should be left alone. Only then is a tool selected and configured - and by that point the choice is straightforward, because its exact purpose has already been defined.

It is also why the specific tool matters less than the order. The best model today may not be the best model next year, and the vendors will keep changing their limits, their prices, and of course their capabilities. A firm that started with its own practice can change the tool underneath it. A firm that started with the tool has to start over.

Capability is no longer the constraint

Something has shifted in the last two years. For the vast majority of core legal functions, the question is no longer whether a given tool can perform required tasks. The question is whether the firm has defined what it wants the tool to accomplish. Once a practice model can be clearly articulated, it can be built. That puts the burden back where it belongs: on judgment, not on software - and judgment is exactly the dimension a tool cannot supply.

This is what a technology-first decision quietly gives up. When a firm tethers its operations to the built-in functionality of a Harvey or a Claude, it dilutes what makes it distinctive and accepts the version of legal work the product already assumes. Instead of shaping the technology, the firm is reshaped by it. The firms that will pull ahead in the coming years are those that define the vision first, letting the technology follow.

The order is the strategy

Get the order right and the technology becomes a detail, an implementation question, resolved downstream, with confidence. Get it wrong and no budget, no vendor support, and no model upgrade will salvage your investment. So before asking which tool, ask the questions the tool is meant to answer. That question is your practice, and it must dictate everything.

← Back to insights