Has GenAI Hit the Peak of Inflated Expectations?
A Reality Check on AI Adoption and Use in Legal Practice: Where are we at on Gartner’s Hype Cycle?
When Warren Buffett observed that "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked," he wasn't talking about artificial intelligence or the practice of law. Yet his wisdom perfectly captures the current moment in legal technology as the initial wave of generative AI enthusiasm begins to recede. That causes me to ask – Where are we in Gartner’s Hype Cycle in regard to GenAI? Last year I published an article about Gartner’s Hype Cycle and its five phases: Innovation Trigger, Peak of Inflated Expectations, Trough of Disillusionment, Slope of Enlightenment, and Plateau of Productivity. At the time I wrote that article, it was clear that with GenAI, we were flying high on the Peak of Inflated Expectations.
The past year has seen an explosion of self-proclaimed AI experts, consultants, and influencers - what might be called "prompt tourism" - promising to transform legal practice using GenAI through a few simple shortcuts. No doubt this wave of “quick experts” will no doubt see us into 2025. But as sanctions cases mount, ethics questions arise, and implementation challenges emerge, a quieter, more thoughtful evaluation is taking hold among legal professionals. This measured skepticism might herald the start of our slide into the Trough of Disillusionment. This slide may prove to be not just appropriate but essential for the meaningful integration of AI into legal practice.
Signs of the Shifting Tide
The evolution of how lawyers approach AI tells its own story. In 2023, the predominant question was simply "How do we get started with AI?" Early 2024 saw a shift to "How do we use AI safely?" Now, firms are asking the more thoughtful, nuanced question: "How do we use AI effectively?" This progression reflects more than just growing familiarity with the technology - it represents a fundamental shift in understanding what AI adoption truly requires. At ILTACON2024 during a discussion paneled by several AmLaw100 and AmLaw50 CEOs more than one of the CEOs concluded that if we weren’t then starting the downward sweep from the high of the Peak of Inflated Expectations, that we were perilously close to the edge.
Meanwhile, social media feeds overflow with promises that “anyone can become an AI consultant” by learning a few prompts. This oversimplification of a complex field mirrors previous tech waves, from the "social media experts" of 2008 to the "blockchain consultants" of 2017. What these quick-fix promises miss is the depth of knowledge required to meaningfully integrate AI into legal practice while navigating professional obligations, ethical considerations, and practical limitations.
The legal profession's characteristic caution, often criticized as technological resistance, may prove to be a valuable asset. Early sanctions cases like Mata v. Avianca serve as sobering reminders that AI implementation in legal practice requires more than surface-level understanding. These cases aren't just cautionary tales; they're early indicators of the complexity inherent in professional GenAI adoption.
Beyond the Binary
The often-repeated claim that "AI won't take lawyers' jobs, but lawyers who use AI will take the jobs of lawyers who don't" captures an important truth but misses crucial nuance. Success with AI in legal practice isn't about simple adoption - it's about understanding:
HOW to use AI: Recognizing its strengths and limitations within specific legal contexts.
WHEN to use AI: Identifying appropriate use cases while maintaining professional judgment.
WHY to use AI: Implementing strategically rather than following trends, or just paying for the newest or most expensive GenAI tool.
This nuanced understanding marks the difference between superficial adoption and meaningful integration. As we enter into what Gartner called the "Trough of Disillusionment" on our way toward the "Slope of Enlightenment," successful firms are shifting their focus from broad AI initiatives to specific, practical applications.
The Real Work Ahead
The current phase of AI adoption in legal practice requires more sophisticated approaches than early implementations. Firms are discovering that meaningful AI integration demands:
Robust training programs that go beyond discovering a few basic prompts
Development of firm- and practice-specific best practices and guidelines
Implementation of quality control systems and regular AI audits
Implementation of risk management protocols
Deep understanding of ethical implications and professional responsibilities
This maturation process is making the work of genuine AI consultants both more challenging and potentially more valuable. The questions are becoming more complex, the solutions more nuanced, and the stakes higher as AI tools become more widely accepted and deeply embedded in legal practice.
Looking Forward
The quiet skepticism emerging in legal circles may actually herald a more sustainable approach to AI adoption. Rather than racing to implement every new AI tool or feature, firms are hopefully beginning to develop thoughtful strategies that align technological capabilities with professional obligations and practical needs. For both lawyers and AI consultants, this moment requires a delicate balance. The challenge isn't just understanding the technology - it's understanding how that technology intersects with the practice of law, professional ethics, and client service. This requires expertise that goes far beyond knowing how to craft effective prompts or navigate AI interfaces.
A New Tide Rising
As the initial hype tide recedes, what's being revealed isn't just who has been swimming naked - it's also who was building sustainable practices all along. The next wave of AI adoption in legal practice will likely be more measured but ultimately more transformative. It will be led not by those promising quick fixes or universal solutions, but by professionals who understand both the potential and the limitations of AI in legal practice.
The path forward requires moving beyond both blind enthusiasm and reflexive skepticism toward a mature understanding of AI's role in legal practice. This understanding acknowledges both the tremendous potential of AI tools and the complexity of implementing them responsibly in professional contexts.
Conclusion
For law firms considering their AI strategy and for consultants advising them, the message is clear: The era of "prompt tourism" is ending – you deserve more. What comes next will require deeper expertise, more careful implementation, and a thorough understanding of how GenAI can genuinely enhance the practice of law while upholding professional standards and ethical obligations.
© 2024 Amy Swaner. All Rights Reserved. May use with link and attribution.