From Innovation to Everyday Practice: What Real Adoption Looks Like in Law
- cosmonauts
- Apr 8
- 6 min read
Innovation in law is often framed around new tools, capabilities, and breakthroughs. But in practice, its success is defined by something far simpler: whether it actually gets used.
In this Future Lawyer UK Q&A, Eleanor Ley, Head of Innovation - Global Financial Markets at A&O Shearman, shares her perspective on what meaningful innovation looks like in a legal environment, and why the real challenge lies not in building solutions, but in embedding them into everyday practice.
Enjoy the interview below.
How do you personally define “innovation” in the legal sector, and what does it look like when it’s done well?
If I am doing my job well, what was previously “innovative” becomes second nature. That means making the innovation elements almost invisible - embedded into everyday workflows, used under real pressure, and trusted by legal teams. Getting to that point is hard and it is certainly not linear. Honesty about that matters, because unless we are really thoughtful about adoption, lawyers will abandon new ways of working the moment they slow them down or introduce uncertainty. That understanding shapes the approach I take with teams: testing on real work where possible, accepting that some ideas won’t scale or simply aren’t fit for some work types, being thoughtful about providing tailored help so that lawyers feel supported in doing things differently. For me, a signal of success is when teams don’t think of certain solutions as “innovation” anymore.
So, if merely using technology well is increasingly business as usual, the challenge - and the value - lies in the kind of innovation which takes vision and a re-imagining of the way we win, deliver and price work. That is why working with A&O Shearman’s Markets Innovation Group (MIG) makes my job especially rewarding – we can combine technology and our deep legal subject-matter expertise in a way which genuinely redefines how we deliver value to our clients.
What’s the difference between incremental innovation and truly transformational change?
Building on the above, incremental innovation makes the existing model work better, whereas transformational innovation changes the operating model itself. Both are important - for example streamlining processes, saving time and improving consistency so that “innovation” becomes “the way we do things” is foundational to continuous improvement in the firm, and this sort of incremental innovation compounds massively over time. Taking AI as an example, the tools we use at A&O Shearman - our proprietary software ContractMatrix, Harvey and Microsoft Copilot - can improve the way we undertake routine tasks like summarisation and analysis on every matter in every practice group. This still involves effort to ensure that our lawyers and our clients are getting value from our tools and as use of AI tools becomes more commonplace it is clear that this is becoming less of a differentiator.
Transformational innovation reshapes how work is staffed, how advice is packaged, how risk is managed, and how value is demonstrated to clients. It requires a deep review of aspects of the business model and directly affects culture. At A&O Shearman, we have long been involved in transformational ways of delivering for our clients, but generative AI has accelerated that shift. Last year we launched ContractMatrix Vantage, developed by our MIG team, which analyses contracts at scale against playbooks tailored to our clients’ requirements, giving them insights earlier, surfacing risks sooner, and delivering advice shaped by a much broader evidence base than was previously practical. This is more collaborative with clients, whereas incremental innovation tends to be more internal. That transformational approach explains why we have won so many accolades for being innovative.
How do you measure whether innovation has really succeeded?
This lies at the very core of any conversation about innovation. Measuring success is often far from straightforward when it comes to tech and AI. Benchmarking and baselining are difficult activities for service organisations, especially those, like law firms, delivering a wide variety of often bespoke services to diverse clients. Usage data is helpful but on its own tells you little – high usage does not necessarily mean high value. True measurement requires a holistic approach: alongside usage, you need anecdotal feedback, and matter-level metrics. That last element is especially hard. Demonstrating value may be more straightforward on repeatable, lower-complexity tasks; but it is much harder in complex, high-stakes work - I see this first-hand working with the capital markets specialists at A&O Shearman.
In the “transformational” space, there are more ways to bake in measures of success, but this is much harder when we look to improve “traditional” matter delivery. Here, the objective is not simply to do the same work faster, but to redirect effort towards higher‑value judgement, risk assessment and client engagement - areas where clients continue to see clear value but which are harder to quantify. So, a hands-on approach is needed – identifying areas ripe for improvement, working closely with the team throughout a matter, capturing data, and where possible comparing delivery methods through sandboxes and bake-offs.
This involves measuring in different ways: inputs - are people engaging and using the tools? Outputs - is work happening faster and better on-matter? And outcomes - are we seeing improved client satisfaction, faster delivery, and increased profitability? Tracking across all three levels helps us to prove value and scale adoption. When it works, it becomes a virtuous circle. When it doesn't, we have to be willing to stop, reassess and evolve our approach.
Why is innovation in law uniquely hard compared to other industries?
Two key reasons.
Firstly, legal work is built on judgement, trust, delivery and accountability. The cost of getting it wrong is high and lawyers are trained to be ‘right’, so are inherently averse to uncertainty and thus risk. As I have already mentioned, lawyers - understandably - lose faith in technology on-matter the moment it creates friction, especially when they are under pressure to deliver. That is why it is important to see this not as a deployment or usage challenge, but a change management challenge, and really understand on a matter-by-matter basis what needs to be done in order to innovate with lasting impact.
Secondly, law firm models do not naturally lend themselves to innovation (i.e. novelty, change, and challenge). Innovating can raise uncomfortable questions about time recording, pricing models and incentive structures, and methods, techniques and other norms. Law firms are expert organisations, owned and managed by partners, which traditionally have incentive structures that reward utilisation and personal delivery. That creates a real tension: if the time a lawyer spends experimenting with a new workflow is time they can’t bill, other incentives may be required. Adoption is driven by partner confidence and tangible value, but to get there we need to be deliberate about giving fee earners the space to innovate.
We try to keep agility and responsiveness to client and market needs tied to innovation, to reduce what might otherwise be in tension. Our Markets Innovation Group helps the firm address this directly – lawyers can take part in secondments to work alongside legal AI experts, software engineers and technologists within MIG, then return to their core practice with the skills and mindset to drive adoption in their teams. I’ve seen some great success with this approach recently in our US Capital Markets group, with tangible outcomes which can be shared with the group.
What advice would you give to lawyers who want to work in innovation but stay close to practice?
I don’t think you need to (or should) separate the two! For innovation to deliver on its promise, firms need lawyers who are close to the practice and who are willing to experiment. I believe that a growth mindset is a non-negotiable, and so if you want to work in this kind of role, you are already demonstrating this.
On AI specifically, the answer depends on where you are in your career. To junior lawyers: understand how to use AI, but make sure you do the legal hard yards. Hone critical thinking and don’t shortcut building deep expertise in your chosen area - that will still be your superpower. For more senior lawyers, I have good news. You already have the expertise to assess AI outputs, developed over years of practice. You do not need to be a data scientist. You just need to roll up your sleeves and engage.
Ultimately, the pace of legal innovation in any firm is not by technology alone, but by the willingness of lawyers to embrace change, challenge convention, and collaborate across disciplines. Those who are prepared to adapt will ensure that their practice – and the profession - remains relevant, resilient and ready for whatever comes next.
Eleanor will be joining us on Day 1 of Future Lawyer UK 9.0 for the panel: “From Investment to Impact: Driving Adoption, Engagement, and Value from Legal Tech.”
The session will explore how firms can move beyond implementation to real adoption, embedding technology into workflows, driving engagement, and delivering measurable value to clients.
Register now to join the conversation at Future Lawyer UK 9.0
Comments