The Sunday BlindSpot | Issue #13

Riding the Rapids of Legal Tech

Reflections from ALPMA + ALTACON and the Lawtech Summit

Over the past few weeks, I have had the privilege of being part of two very different but equally insightful legal technology gatherings. The first was ALPMA + ALTACON in Sydney, and the second was the 19th Lawtech Summiton the Gold Coast.

At ALPMA I was invited to join a panel discussion that explored one of the most complex questions facing firms today: how do we measure return on investment from artificial intelligence when the hype is so loud? I also presented my own session, Beyond the Features, where I spoke about the nuances of legal technology selection and deployment. In a year when almost every conference session seemed to have “AI” in the title, I was quietly pleased that mine did not.

The Conferences: Different Vibes, Same Context

Although both events shared the same underlying theme of artificial intelligence dominating the agenda, the atmosphere at each was very different.

ALPMA + ALTACON had a busy and lively feel, with a broad range of roles represented across law firms. It attracted people from operations, finance, IT, and practice management as well as lawyers, and the overall mood was curious and inquisitive. Attendees seemed eager to explore possibilities and to ask questions that began with “what if.”

The Lawtech Summit had a more corporate tone. The audience leaned heavily towards senior executives, managing partners, and C level leaders. Conversations at this event carried not only curiosity but also a clear sense of caution and, at times, healthy scepticism about how quickly and how deeply firms should commit to artificial intelligence.

When Every Session Has Artificial Intelligence in the Title

At both conferences, the prominence of artificial intelligence was impossible to ignore. Almost every session had it in the title and many vendor presentations focused on how their solutions were addressing issues such as hallucination or productivity.

To be candid, it was sometimes overwhelming. Statistics and insights were repeated across multiple sessions, which meant the messages began to blur. What stood out, however, was the amount of pushback. Not everyone in the room was convinced that the tools were ready for prime time. Speakers and attendees raised legitimate concerns about reliability, accountability, and the risk of firms placing too much faith in technology that is still maturing.

The Artificial Intelligence Dilemma: Cost, Return on Investment, and Client Expectations

These discussions led naturally to one of the most difficult challenges for firms, which is how to understand the true cost of artificial intelligence and what return on investment it can realistically provide.

Artificial intelligence tools are not free. The licences are expensive and firms must invest significant time in governance, training, and quality control. Clients often assume that if tasks are completed more quickly, their bills should automatically shrink. In practice, the picture is more complicated. The tools themselves come at a cost and the outputs still require careful human oversight before they can be passed on to clients.

Return on investment is therefore unpredictable. Sometimes the benefits only become clear after the tools have been put into practice, and they may not appear in the form of direct savings. Instead, firms may gain time that can be redirected towards strategy, client service, or higher value work. During my panel discussion I made the point that the return on investment from artificial intelligence is largely unknown until it actually occurs.

Fear of Missing Out and the Pace of Adoption

Another theme that emerged strongly was fear of missing out.

At ALPMA + ALTACON this fear was matched with an infectious curiosity. Many firms were keen to try new ideas and to explore opportunities so they would not be left behind. At the Lawtech Summit, the sentiment was different. Firms were still interested, but they were also careful and deliberate. The leadership audience was weighing the risks and considering whether the tools were truly ready for immediate adoption.

Both approaches involve risk. Moving too quickly may result in wasted investment on tools that do not last, while moving too slowly risks falling behind competitors. The balance lies in being willing to experiment, but doing so in a thoughtful and structured way.

A Smarter Way to Use Artificial Intelligence

One of the most useful reframings I heard across both events was that firms should use artificial intelligence to critique rather than to create.

The best results come when you provide the technology with your own ideas, notes, or drafts and then ask it to analyse, sharpen, and restructure them. Artificial intelligence is designed to please and it often provides positive reinforcement when what we really need is constructive challenge.

This change in mindset, from asking artificial intelligence to generate content from scratch to treating it as a thought partner, may well prove to be the most valuable way to unlock its potential.

Closing Thoughts

Reflecting on both ALPMA + ALTACON and the Lawtech Summit, I was left with two strong impressions.

The first is that we are in a period of noisy but important transition. The hype will eventually settle, the market will consolidate, and best practices will emerge. In the meantime, experimentation is messy but unavoidable, and firms will need to learn by doing.

The second is that the role of the lawyer remains as important as ever. Far from replacing lawyers, artificial intelligence creates an opportunity to focus on judgment, empathy, and advocacy, which are the qualities that no algorithm can replicate.

The real question is not whether we should leap headfirst into the river or stay safely on the bank. Perhaps the wiser path is to wade in carefully, to test the currents, and to be ready to adjust our direction as we go.

Either way, it is a fascinating and exciting time to be involved in legal technology.