Meritas' Corey Garver says tech failures in law firms rarely stem from the tools themselves
While the legal industry debates what artificial intelligence might mean for the future of law, the main barrier to effective legal tech adoption is often not technological – it's human.
That’s according to Corey Garver, legal tech advisor at Meritas, a global law firm alliance that has recently held its annual meeting with legal tech as one of the key topics.
Garver says that the consensus was that many tech rollouts fail not because of the technology but because law firms underestimate the people problems that come with change.
“Change in technology often requires a change in human behaviour,” Garver says.
Garver says one of the most common reasons for failed implementations is a lack of upfront planning. Too often, he says, firms introduce tools without first building a case for why they’re needed or understanding the views of different stakeholders.
“You need to keep in mind there are multiple audiences that you need to persuade and appeal to,” he says.
Not every lawyer will see the same benefit from a new tool, and the firm’s decision-makers aren’t always its tech innovators. To gain leadership buy-in, Garver stresses the importance of building a strong business case that clearly defines purpose, goals, and how success will be measured.
“There’s a lot of groundwork that goes into it.”
Garver says firm culture plays a significant role in how legal tech is received. While some regions or teams may be more inclined to adopt new tools – for example, collectivist cultures or compliance-heavy practices – others are more resistant.
He adds that rainmakers and high-performing lawyers can be especially hard to convince, as their success can make them less prone to conforming with the changes.
Complicating matters, different firms define success differently. Some seek to save costs; others prioritize compliance, speed, or client experience. He says that tech rollouts can lose focus without a shared understanding of what success looks like – or how to measure it.
“If you are trying to implement a technology that only meets the needs of a fraction of the audience, then there is another reason for failure,” Garver says.
He adds that some reluctance is tied to concerns over data privacy, while other resistance stems from the billing model itself – as efficient tools that reduce billable time challenge long-standing revenue practices in the profession.
Another common stumbling block is data readiness. Law firms often chase the "shiny object" – the latest trending tool – without preparing the backend infrastructure to support it.
Garver says firms quickly realize that “without the right data and the right integrations, the technology is useless.”
The firms succeeding today, he says, are those with strong knowledge management and information governance foundations.
“They have their house in order when it comes to data readiness.”
The crowded legal tech marketplace also presents challenges. Some tools deliver real value; others are narrow, gimmicky, or rebranded versions of existing free products, Garver says.
“There’s a lot of saturation in the market… Some vendors just add ‘AI’ to their product description and then can’t explain what problem the product actually solves.”
He warns that law firms should be cautious of so-called “one-trick ponies” – tools that do one task well but fail to integrate with other systems or provide a comprehensive solution.
These can hinder efficiency rather than enhance it, especially if they require jumping between incompatible platforms.
Sophisticated buyers are getting better at identifying what tools to trust. But for law firms, Garver says, making the right tech choice still requires significant due diligence and a clear sense of how a tool fits within the firm's broader strategy.
Garver notes that generational divides continue to influence adoption. Some lawyers, particularly those later in their careers, are often more hesitant to embrace unfamiliar tools, but client expectations are also pushing the needle.
“There’s an appetite for education and learning around not only what technologies are out there, but how to use them,” he says.
To bridge the gap, he stresses the importance of legal tech education at the firm level and in law schools.
A recent live poll conducted during Garver’s panel found that 88 percent of participants had made or planned a significant tech change. While that number sounds high, he was surprised it wasn’t even higher.
Regardless of the pace, that change is underway and inevitable, he adds.
