Insights from the Front Lines of Legal AI Adoption

At the start of the year, I had the opportunity to moderate a Customer Advisory Board panel at Brightflag’s 2026 Kickoff—our annual all-company gathering in Dublin, Ireland. The topic was one that’s now familiar but still far from straightforward: how corporate legal departments are actually using AI today. Not in theory, not aspirationally, but in practice.

What struck me wasn’t the sophistication of the technology discussion (although the panel was made up of exceptionally thoughtful leaders!). It was how consistently the conversation surfaced underlying shifts shaping how AI is moving in-house, even when those shifts aren’t explicitly named.

Bringing those shifts into focus helps clarify what’s actually changing, and why it matters for how legal teams operate.

Transparency is Redefining Outside Counsel Relationships

The most candid part of the discussion centered on outside counsel—and it had some heat behind it.

There was strong alignment on the panel about how requests for transparency around AI usage—including how it’s applied, what efficiencies it creates, and how those efficiencies are shared—are often met with reassurance rather than substance, falling short of the partnership legal teams now expect from outside counsel.

“Trust us” is not partnership.

Legal teams aren’t asking firms to have every answer fully formed. They are asking for openness, collaboration, and a willingness to engage honestly on how AI is changing the delivery of legal services. When firms can’t explain how AI is being used, or what it means for efficiency, value, and risk, in-house teams are left accountable for decisions they can’t properly evaluate or defend with internal stakeholders.

In some cases, this has led to real consequences. Firms that default to reassurance rather than clarity are finding themselves excluded not as punishment, but because legal teams can’t carry accountability without information.

When firms avoid transparency around AI, they shift risk onto their clients. Those that engage openly and invite challenge are doing the opposite, helping legal teams make defensible decisions in uncertain territory. That’s the role trusted advisors have always played. The need for open dialogue around AI makes this level of clarity a non-negotiable.

From “Delivery” to Shared Ownership

A similar shift is happening in how legal teams think about their technology partners.

For years, legal technology followed a familiar model. Vendors built. Legal teams implemented. Roadmaps were largely fixed. That model is breaking down.

The pace of change, particularly with AI, is now too fast, too uncertain, and too context-specific for rigid delivery to work. In-house teams are no longer willing to commit to a single direction they don’t meaningfully control for the life of a contract.

What’s replacing it is something more collaborative.

Legal leaders increasingly expect vendors to operate as partners; adapting, iterating, and co-creating alongside them as priorities shift. Not because it sounds progressive, but because anything else creates unacceptable risk.

At its core, this is about maintaining control in an environment where technology is evolving quickly and regulatory expectations, internal governance and business needs are all moving targets.

AI strategy is no longer a one-time procurement decision; it’s an ongoing capability. That means being deliberate about the partners you choose, prioritizing vendors with a demonstrated commitment to continuous innovation, a track record of genuine collaboration, and a willingness to co-create alongside customers as needs evolve.

In practice, this shifts how legal leaders evaluate vendors. Roadmaps matter, but so do the processes behind them. How is customer input gathered and prioritized? How often does it meaningfully shape what gets built? And how transparent is the vendor about what’s coming next? These questions are becoming as important as current functionality when assessing long-term fit.

Build vs. Buy is Being Quietly Re-litigated

Another theme that surfaced repeatedly was tension. Not between legal and vendors, but inside the enterprise.

Legal departments are facing growing pressure from internal technical and governance teams to rationalize tools, reduce duplication and build internally. The rapid rise of general-purpose AI and internal experimentation has shifted perceptions. When teams can quickly assemble functional tools in-house, it can create the impression that many legal point solutions are easily replicable, even when the underlying complexity suggests otherwise.

As a result, buying a purpose-built legal tech solution is no longer the unchallenged default it once was.

For legal leaders, this creates a more nuanced responsibility. You’re often the bridge between legal’s operational realities and enterprise-wide technology strategy, and the role is no longer to only create the ‘buy’ business case, but to exercise judgement. AI raises the standard by making both build and buy more viable, requiring leaders to be precise about when specialization truly matters, why it does, and when building or streamlining internally is the better choice.

Less Legal AI Hype. More Operational Truth.

None of this points to a dramatic AI revolution. If anything, it suggests the opposite.

The reality of AI in-house today isn’t showing up in silver-bullet use cases or sweeping transformations. It’s playing out in everyday operational decisions about control, transparency and partnership.

A Leadership Moment, Not a Technology One

My takeaway from the panel wasn’t about AI capability. It was about how legal leaders are deciding what matters—and what doesn’t.

The strongest teams aren’t chasing innovation for its own sake. They’re being deliberate about how they choose partners, how they make trade-offs, and where they insist on control in an increasingly complex environment.

AI isn’t changing that responsibility. It’s accelerating it.

For senior legal leaders, the work now is less about adoption and more about intention; being clear about what you expect from technology, from vendors, and from outside counsel, and being willing to challenge those expectations when they aren’t met.

That isn’t hype. That’s operational maturity. And that may be the most important legal capability of all right now.