You do not need to know which AI product to buy before asking for help. Start with a piece of work your team would like to spend less time on.
That might be putting correspondence into date order, preparing a draft update or finding the same information in several places. The first discussion should establish what the job involves and whether AI would actually help. These five questions give that discussion some substance.
1. Which task causes the most avoidable work?
Pick something people recognise. “Improve litigation” is too broad to test. “Prepare a draft chronology from this set of correspondence, with a source reference for each event” gives you a job to examine.
Ask the person doing it to walk through the steps. Include finding the documents, sorting out missing material and checking the finished work. Find out how often the task comes up. A small saving on a frequent job may be worth more than a dramatic demonstration of something the team rarely needs.
2. Can the tool work with the information you have?
A document may be easy for a person to read but difficult for software to process. Scans, tables split across pages and missing attachments can all affect the result. Check what the tool can actually read before judging its answer.
Also establish where the files are kept and who is allowed to see them. Before entering matter information, the firm needs to understand the proposed service’s terms, settings and handling of data. Fictional documents are enough for an initial exercise. Removing a client’s name from a real file does not necessarily remove the details that identify it.
3. Will using it create extra steps?
Follow the work beyond the AI screen. If a user must download files, upload them elsewhere, reformat the answer and copy it back into the case management system, those steps count too.
Look at the software and licences the firm already has. There may be an unused feature that meets the need. Where a new product is being considered, check exactly which connections it supports and what someone will still have to do manually.
4. Who will check the result?
Name the reviewer before the test starts. For a chronology, someone needs to open the sources, check the events and distinguish an allegation from an agreed fact. A source link makes that work easier to do; it does not establish that the answer is right.
The people using the tool need time to learn this process. A solicitor checking a draft chronology and an administrator preparing an enquiry handover have different tasks. Training should reflect that difference, including when to stop and ask for help.
5. How will you decide whether to keep it?
Record how long the current task takes, then measure the test on the same basis. Include preparation, checking and corrections. Keep a note of errors and any information the output leaves out.
Compare the result with the cost of licences, setup and training. Time released can give the team more capacity without reducing the firm’s monthly spending. Decide which benefit you are looking for and what evidence would justify the next stage.
These answers may point to a small first project, some work on your documents or a reason to postpone a purchase. You do not need the entire firm ready at once. Tell me where your firm is starting from, and we can work out what to investigate first.