NetDocuments recently came out with its 2025 Trends Report. This Report, based on a survey of legal professionals and related research, attempts to spotlight the trends law firms, in-house counsel, and legal professionals are facing.

This year’s Report contained lots of information about the use of Gen AI and its impact. But one finding caught my attention since it something about which I have previously written.   It’s a finding that touches on the future of work processes, what the concept of a good lawyer will mean, and what skills lawyers and legal organizations will need.

75% of the legal professionals surveyed expect to change their talent strategies within two years

A Key Finding

According to NetDocuments, 75% of the legal professionals surveyed “expect to change their talent strategies within two years in response to advances in GenAI.”

What exactly this means isn’t clear, nor is the thought process of those responding evident. But 75% is a pretty big number.

Also, I’m always a little skeptical of surveys that ask what law firms especially will do in the future. And the question may have been worded in such a way that it would be hard to respond in anyway but the affirmative.

But if you accept the idea that law firms will change how they look at talent and who they hire, NetDocuments does raise some interesting conclusions as an outgrowth of this statistic.

The Native Tech Talent Myth

First, NetDocuments says law firms will seek professionals that have skills in technology and in particularly with Gen AI. NetDocuments recommends, “expand your hiring profiles and offer incentives to attract candidates who bring expertise in AI and machine learning.

Certainly, firms should look at the skills of new hires and inquire as to the use of technology’s and GenAI. But when up to 86% of students today are using GenAI in their studies, it may be a given that most law school grads have used ChatGPT or similar tools.

But law firms need to resist the temptation as they often do with tech in general that those coming out of law schools are somehow proficient in tech. All to often they assume that if you are a certain age, you are technological proficient. But in general, those coming out of school know about the technology they use to do the things they do in school. That’s not necessarily the tools they will need to use in the practice of law or to be a good lawyer. So making assumptions about proficiency with general, public GenAI tools based on asking them what they have been using may end up creating unrealist expectations.

What’s more important is attitude and how the student may have leveraged Gen AI tools in creative ways.

Moreover, law students don’t need to be concerned about client confidences. Use of Chat GPT doesn’t mean you know how to use the tools that the firm is using. What’s more important is attitude and how the student may have leveraged Gen AI tools in creative ways. Those are the candidates that may succeed in the future.

Is Sophisticated Technological Knowledge Necessary?

I’m also not sure if it pays to hire lawyers and legal professional with sophisticated technical knowledge. All too often I have seen these folks not succeed because they have difficulty communicating what they are doing or the points they want to make. Technical knowledge is important but not necessarily for the lawyers. That expertise should be found in those who are not lawyers but have the requite knowledge. 

Moreover, the Gen AI tools are relatively easy to use. What’s more important than technical knowledge is creativity and willingness to use the tools to get the result you want. (Of course, firms have the responsibility to make sure their lawyers understand the risks and benefits of the technology they are using.)

A Needed Change in Mindset and Culture

The NetDocuments Report does raise another important issue, however, NetDocuments notes that “encouraging AI adoption requires a shift in organizational culture and mindset.” I think that’s true but maybe in a more fundamental way. The future delivery of legal services may require a different structure than lawyer to client where the lawyers provide the legal services to the client. But the new tools may suggest a different sort of mindset where AI tools and data analytics play a much bigger role. This suggests the best way to deliver the best and most efficient legal services is a team of lawyers, data scientist and creative folks who may or may not be lawyers. 

The Ownership Barrier

The problem of course is that only lawyers can be the owners of law firms. Only lawyers can directly participate in the rewards and risks. This difference between owners (stockholders) and employees hampers law firms in getting the best non legal talent. It also permeates law firm culture. When only lawyers can be owners, it hinders the team approach, creativity and nimbleness that non legal companies can access. It’s an us against them mentality and encourage arrogances among the owners. All too often it leads to a dismissal of ideas because the ideas did not come from the lawyers. And for non-owners it reduces motivation to press for ideas and change since there is no direct financial interest to do so. 

The Future

In the end, whether law firms actually change their hiring practices or talent strategies in response to GenAI remains to be seen. But what’s clear is that the traditional models of legal work, talent evaluation, and firm structure may be challenged. Firms and in-house legal can no longer just focus on surface-level tech adoption or assume the next generation of lawyers comes fully equipped. What’s perhaps needed is a deeper cultural shift, one that values diverse skills, creative problem-solving, and truly collaborative teams. Whether the legal profession is ready for that shift is still an open question.