Six months ago, we piloted a general-purpose legal AI tool to a subset of our lawyer bench at Axiom. We assumed our lawyers, who are smart, tech-forward professionals, would figure out how to extract value from it. We were wrong. Adoption stalled within weeks. Sound familiar?

This wasn't our first failed pilot either. Our Microsoft Copilot evaluation on the business side followed the same pattern: impressive technology, enthusiastic launch, then crickets. The tool gathered digital dust while our lawyers reverted to their familiar workflows.

These failures taught us what MIT's recent research now confirms: 95% of AI pilots across industries fail to deliver measurable business impact. For in-house legal departments, this statistic isn't just concerning; it's an existential threat at a moment when the economics of legal services are fundamentally shifting.

The $500-Per-Hour AI Paradox

Here's what should keep every General Counsel awake at night: Your outside counsel uses AI today. They review contracts in minutes instead of hours, conducting research in hours instead of days. Yet your bills haven't decreased. In fact, some firms charge premium rates for "AI-enhanced" services that require less human effort.

You're subsidizing your law firms' efficiency gains while your in-house team struggles to launch a single AI pilot. This isn't sustainable. You face a binary choice: Master AI internally or continue paying increasingly unjustifiable premiums for work that AI makes routine.

The Three Phases Where Legal AI Pilots Die

After running multiple pilots, including our own failures, and working closely with AI partners like DraftPilot and Legora, we've identified exactly where and why legal AI initiatives fail. The technology isn't usually the problem.

Phase 1: The Use Case Vacuum

The first mistake happens before you even select a tool. Legal departments approach AI backwards, starting with "What AI should we buy?" instead of "What specific problems do we need to solve?"

We see this constantly: A legal team gets budget approval for AI, sits through impressive demos, selects a tool that seems to "do everything," then hands it to their lawyers expecting magic. Your team opens the tool, stares at a blank prompt, and has no idea what to do with it. They try it once or twice, get mediocre results, and never return.

Our failed general-purpose AI pilot died exactly this way. Without mapping specific use cases such as contract review workflows, research patterns, or compliance monitoring tasks, we essentially handed our team a powerful engine with no instruction manual or destination.

Phase 2: The "Set It and Forget It" Fallacy

The second critical failure point occurs during rollout. Organizations treat AI implementation like software installation: train people once, then expect adoption. This fundamentally misunderstands how lawyers change deeply ingrained workflows.

When we achieve successful implementations, we’ve embedded enablement throughout the entire setup phase. We run weekly office hours, monitor usage patterns, adjust to user feedback, and most importantly, we stay present. The best adoptions we've seen involve 8-12 weeks of intensive support, not a two-hour training session.

Phase 3: The Capability Confusion

The final failure point is more subtle but equally deadly: misunderstanding what your tools can actually do. We regularly encounter legal departments that believe they've "solved AI" because their CLM system "has AI capabilities." Yet when we dig deeper, those capabilities remain inactivated, unconfigured, or unsuitable for their actual workflows.

Our team recently worked with a Fortune 500 legal team whose management demanded AI efficiency gains. They had procured an expensive CLM with AI capabilities. Leadership celebrated this as an AI win.. In reality, they'd never properly configured these features and saw zero ROI. In fact, they needed our team to train their AI to begin seeing results.

The 8-Week Pilot Framework That Actually Works

Through our failures and successes, we've developed a structured approach that consistently delivers measurable results. Here's the framework for in-house legal teams:

Pre-Work (2 weeks before launch):

• Map your mundane, repetitive tasks (where AI excels)
• Identify 3-5 specific use cases with measurable outcomes
• Select pilot participants across the adoption spectrum (include both tech champions and skeptics)
• Define success metrics beyond just "usage"

Week 1: Foundation Setting

• Kick-off with hands-on training (not just feature tours)
• Assign specific use cases to specific users
• Set usage expectations and check-in schedules

Weeks 2-4: Intensive Support

• Monitor daily usage
• Hold weekly office hours (non-optional)
• Refine use cases based on real experience
• Document and share quick wins

Week 4: Mid-Point Assessment

• Survey for adoption barriers
• Adjust support based on feedback
• Identify and celebrate early successes

Weeks 5-8: Sustainability Building

• Gradually reduce support intensity
• Document workflows that stick
• Build internal champions
• Measure actual time/quality improvements

Week 8: Go/No-Go Decision

• Survey users on impact and adoption
• Calculate ROI based on real data
• Make a clear recommendation for broader rollout or pivot

This isn't theoretical. In our recent 8-week pilot using this exact framework, 18 lawyers reduced contract review time by 20-60% while 89% reported improved work quality. The difference? We knew exactly what we were trying to achieve and supported users throughout the entire journey.

 

Build vs. Buy: The Expensive Illusion of DIY

One of the costliest misconceptions we encounter is that legal departments should build their own AI capabilities. This seems logical - who understands your legal needs better than you? But this thinking ignores a harsh reality: The generative AI space is hypercompetitive and rapidly evolving.

The best legal AI tools employ teams of dedicated engineers and data scientists who continuously improve their models. They have access to massive training datasets, cutting-edge research, and the resources to adapt to each new AI breakthrough. Your internal IT team, no matter how talented, cannot match this pace of innovation while also managing your existing technology infrastructure.

More importantly, you can access these capabilities today. Building internally means waiting months or years for a tool that will likely be outdated before you complete it. We've watched legal departments spend millions on internal builds only to scrap them when they realize commercially available tools already surpassed their efforts.

The Tools That Work (And Why Most Don't)

Through extensive testing, we've identified clear patterns that separate successful legal AI tools from expensive failures:

• Winners: Tools with narrow, deep focus. Take DraftPilot. It does one thing: redlining. It does that exceptionally well. Its narrow focus allows for optimized workflows, accurate outputs, and rapid user adoption. Users know exactly when and how to use it.
• Losers: "Everything" platforms that require massive configuration, AI-enabled CLMs promise to transform your entire contract lifecycle but often become expensive shelfware. They require months of training, extensive configuration, and constant maintenance. By the time they're "ready," your team loses interest and moves on.

The pattern is clear: Tools that excel at specific tasks with minimal setup consistently outperform broad platforms that require significant investment before delivering value.

Five Questions You Must Answer Before Your Next AI Pilot

Before you evaluate another AI tool, answer these questions honestly:

1. What are our specific use cases? List them. If you can't name at least five concrete workflows, you're not ready for a pilot.
2. What mundane work do our lawyers complain about most? This is where AI delivers immediate value; not by replacing legal judgment, but by eliminating drudgery.
3. What's our team's realistic technical adoption level? If your team still prints emails, you need a different approach than if they're already using legal tech daily.
4. What will our tool landscape look like in 12-18 months? Are you solving today's problem or building tomorrow's capability?
5. Who will own this internally for the next six months? If the answer is "no one" or "committee," your pilot will fail.

The Partnership Imperative

The MIT research revealed something crucial: Organizations that partner with external experts achieve significantly higher success rates than those going alone. This isn't about capability, it's about focus and expertise.

Your legal team's expertise is legal work, not AI implementation. When you try to add AI evaluation, vendor management, technical integration, change management, and ongoing optimization to your existing responsibilities, something suffers. Usually, it's both AI implementation and your core legal work.

The right partner brings three critical elements:

• Pre-vetted tools that have proven successful in similar contexts
• Implementation methodology refined through multiple deployments
• Ongoing support that extends beyond initial training

This isn't about outsourcing your AI strategy; it's about accessing specialized expertise that would be impossible to build internally.

The Window Is Closing

Every month you delay meaningful AI adoption, the gap widens. Your outside counsel becomes more efficient, but your billings don’t go down. Your peer companies build competitive advantages. Your legal team falls further behind the curve.

But here's the opportunity: While 95% of legal departments remain stuck in pilot purgatory, the 5% who get this right will transform their organizations' perception of legal from cost center to strategic enabler.

The path forward isn't complicated, but it requires abandoning the pilot mentality for a commitment to systematic capability building. It requires acknowledging what you don't know and partnering with those who do. Most importantly, it requires starting with clear use cases and supporting your team through the entire transformation journey.

Your Next Step

If you recognize your organization in these failure patterns, you're already ahead of most legal departments as awareness is the first step toward change. The question isn't whether you'll adopt AI, but whether you'll do it strategically or stumble through expensive failures first.

At Axiom, we've learned these lessons through both failure and success. We've tested the tools, refined the methodologies, and built the enablement frameworks that actually work. We're not just AI enthusiasts, we're legal professionals who understand that sustainable transformation requires more than technology.

The legal departments that will thrive in the AI era won't be those with the largest budgets or the most sophisticated tools. They'll be the ones who approach AI adoption systematically, with the right partners, proper support structures, and realistic expectations.

The verdict is in: AI transformation in legal isn't approaching—it's already here. The only question is whether you'll lead it or pay for it.

TALK TO OUR TEAM ABOUT LEGAL AI  GET THE 2025 LEGAL AI REPORT