Originally published in The Legal Intelligencer/law.com
It is human nature to want to do more. But what if your firm’s strategic advantage will come from doing less?
In the age of AI, access to information seems endless. A wealth of insights and millions of data points at our fingertips. Yet as we shift into the Age of Intelligence, it is not the amount of insight that will be the winning differentiator, but what firms choose to do with it. Strategic advantage will come not from choosing more – more headcount, more clients, more opportunities – but from choosing well. Those able to sift through the noise, navigate complex webs of interconnected factors, identify what truly matters and adapt rapidly to changing conditions with discipline and intentionality will thrive.
A Cautionary Tale
In 1628, Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus (Gustav II Adolf) decided to build a ship named Vasa, an impressive vessel to commemorate Sweden's growing military power and dominance in the Baltic and memorialize his excellence. After the blueprints were drawn up, the king demanded modifications to the ship – over 60 bronze cannons, lavish gilded sculptures, and elaborate ornamentation. On the day the ship was finally launched to great fanfare, it moved just inches before toppling under the weight of all the additions and sinking.
Few stories better illustrate the challenge facing today's law firms. It is instinctive to look to propel growth and improvement through augmentation. Yet as this analogy shows, expansion without discipline is destined to fail. Multiple real-life examples of yesterday’s law firms highlight the ultimate penalty for overly aggressive expansion or avoidance of difficult decisions: Brobeck, Bingham and Dewey are just a few examples.
Conversely, leaders with the strategic foresight, discipline and courage to stay true to their vision flourish. The best strategies and plans whittle down grandiose ideas to their essence. They make difficult decisions – so difficult that consultants of yore often referred to the visual of choosing from a basket of kittens which to drown – a horrific image yet powerful in illustrating the emotional attachment people often have to their chosen path.
It is not just strategic planning, though, where the tendency to expand rather than contract detrimentally impacts law firms. We see “everything, everywhere all at once” approaches manifesting across firm operations, including leadership design, governance structures, and talent management.
The All-Encompassing (Impossible) Role of Practice Group Leaders
Elevating Law Firm Leadership, a study from SurePoint Technologies and The Tilt Institute based on insights from over 150 law firm leaders, reveals law firm leaders are almost equally responsible for, well, everything. Over 70% of lawyer leaders see their mandate as inclusive of strategic planning, increasing revenue, operating profitably, client relationship management, talent retention and engagement, development of future leaders, cross-function collaboration and succession planning. If reading that feels exhausting, it should. Extensive research shows when leaders are asked to prioritize too many things, performance declines, initiatives stall and tension spikes.
What to do about it: Start with a firm strategy. Having clear priorities at the top gives deputies – Practice Group Leaders, Office Managers, Department Chairs, Directors – the roadmap they need to navigate priorities. Create written job expectations tied to firm strategy and amend them as needed – if intentionally broad, explicitly state 2-3 priorities annually. Prune key responsibilities of leaders to those only they can do effectively. Solicit (or hire) supporting professionals to handle the managerial aspects. Where possible, create distinctions. For example, give Practice Group Leaders responsibility for talent and Industry Group Heads client-facing initiatives. Most of all, measure it. The same report referenced above indicates 46% of leaders’ performance isn’t measured at all.
The Plague of Shared Leadership Roles
The legal industry is experiencing an uptick in shared leadership roles – bifurcated (or, at times, tri- or quadri- partitated) designations of practice, office or departmental leads (Co-Chair, etc.). The most common reasons given for distributing the responsibility include sharing the burden, a single well-suited candidate did not rise to the top, or all of the elevated lawyers deserved to take the next step. While the true factors may lie more in widespread cultural tendencies to avoid difficult decisions and structural failings around leadership development and progression, the result is the same: blurred roles, duplication of effort, slowed decisions, pent-up frustration and a tremendously high cost – real and opportunity – to the individuals and the firm.
What to do about it? If structural change is an option, start there. Name a clear leader and use delegation of decision-making responsibility and accountability for discrete tasks as a tool to get others involved. Assigning and promoting singular authority helps empower and build trust.
If a shared structure is simply your jam, then create lanes. For example, designate one PGL as responsible for people – development, recruiting, onboarding and proper utilization – and the other for clients and market – tracking revenue, promoting business development and coordinating brand enhancing activities. Clear decision-making authority is one of four critical factors to successful execution. In either scenario, ensure lawyer leaders have open communication with firm management and solid administrative support to tackle the day-to-day operational components of management. This allows designated leaders to lean into motivating and engaging people over managing the endless stream of daily fires.
The Paradox of AI & Innovation
Unlike the Vasa ship, the way to leverage AI into today’s legal landscape does not yet have a blueprint. In its stead, we have rampant experimentation and, often, poorer outcomes. As recently cited on Geek in Review podcast by guest LegalTech Hub’s Nikki Shaver, a common complaint about AI use in law firms today is that it is yielding longer documents, baseless revisions, longer negotiation processes and higher costs to clients – the opposite of its intended purpose. This is the legal sector’s equivalent of the now ubiquitous “AI slop”. Why is this happening? The issue isn’t too much AI use, it is poor use and not enough guidelines – the same principle as haphazardly augmenting a ship with cannons without questioning if the fundamental structure remains sound.
What to do about it? Establish protocols for use of AI – define when and how it is appropriate and, perhaps equally important, where not to avoid using AI and how to question its output adequately with a defined end goal in mind. Educate and train professionals and lawyers on not just prompting but how to test assumptions and push back to have AI correct its own biases and assumptions. Finally, for newer lawyers, clarify how AI can be leveraged not to replace their development but to augment it – for example, evaluating their drafts, identifying broken logic and searching for inconsistencies rather than simply taking on the task at hand. Yes, experimentation is important. But innovation accelerates when experimentation occurs within clear constraints. Guardrails do not inhibit creativity, they focus it. (For more on this topic, check out Inside the Box by Drew Boyd and Jacob Goldenberg.)
Endless Possibilities, Disciplined Choices
While not an exhaustive list, these examples illuminate the power of how not just information, but choice and discipline, will be the superpower of the future. In an age of endless possibilities, competitive advantage increasingly comes from what you choose not to do. Before adding one more committee, identify which one will disband. Before saying “yes” to a lateral hire, ensure alignment with strategic priorities. Before elevating a strategic priority, designate what moves off the list.
The firms that outperform over the next decade may not be those with the biggest technology budgets or the most ambitious strategic plans. They may simply be the ones with the discipline to say 'no' more often than their competitors.
Reprinted with permission from the July 24th edition of the Legal Intelligencer © 2026 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com.