The result
Use increased from 32% to 72% in the firm’s corporate practice. That’s a rise of 40 percentage points. The earlier use was mandated; the later use was voluntary.
This is a practice-level adoption result. It does not describe every lawyer in the firm, and it is not a claim about revenue growth.
The constraint
The firm had invested in AI, but use alone didn’t tell the whole story. Lawyers still had to judge whether the output was useful enough to bring into their work. A mandate could create activity without removing that burden.
The useful question was how to make the system fit the corporate practice’s work and reduce the effort needed to turn output into something the team could use.
What changed
We worked on the capability inside the practice’s workflow, with attention to output quality, review, and the way lawyers used the system. The engagement combined implementation with measurement of the resulting behavior.
The team could assess the result after the mandate was lifted. People returned because they found the capability useful in their work.
How we measured it
The denominator was the attorneys in the corporate practice. The 32% baseline came from vendor analytics. The 72% result came from our telemetry in the quarter after launch.
The measurement sources differ. We report them explicitly rather than presenting the change as a controlled experiment. The result supports the adoption story within that practice.
Source: the engagement’s documented case record. Client identity and internal materials remain private.
The lesson
Mandated activity is a weak substitute for a tool that helps people finish their work. Measure use alongside quality and the work’s actual limiting step.
For the practical evaluation process, read why law firm AI adoption stalls.
Find your next useful step.
Share your goal. We’ll investigate the likely bottleneck and recommend what to do next.
Start your free assessment