"No one's happy with their practice management system, but no one really wants to change systems either."
It wasn't planned as the opening statement of the discussion, but within minutes of sitting down with law firm leaders at The Legal Conference in Birmingham, it became clear that it perfectly captured the mood around the table.
In fact, despite discussing everything from AI governance and system integrations through to procurement processes and people management, almost every conversation returned to the same conclusion: Technology projects are rarely about technology. They're about people.
At Xperate's roundtable sessions, led by Head of Marketing, Hannah Perryman, law firm leaders from across the UK gathered to discuss two scenarios familiar to many firms: replacing a practice management system and introducing AI tools. Managing Partners, Heads of Department, IT leaders, Finance professionals, Compliance specialists, HR teams, and Business Development leaders all brought their own perspectives to the conversation. Quite literally.
Armed with an assortment of hats, delegates were challenged to approach each scenario from the perspective of a different role within the firm. What would Finance worry about? What keeps Compliance awake at night? How would IT view the challenge? What does it mean for fee earners?
The exercise was intended to spark debate and open minds to appreciate how technology change impacts all areas of the business. Because one of the biggest reasons technology projects struggle in law firms is that decisions are often viewed through a single hat. Yet replacing a PMS, implementing AI or introducing any major change affects everyone differently. What looks like an efficiency improvement through one hat can look like risk, disruption, cost or opportunity through another.
What followed was something far more valuable: a candid conversation about the realities of technology change in today's law firms.
The PMS Problem Nobody Wants to Tackle
If there was one topic that generated universal agreement, it was practice management systems.
Or perhaps more accurately, dissatisfaction with practice management systems.
Not a single firm around the table described their PMS as perfect. Most admitted they were living with compromises. Some felt constrained by inflexible platforms. Others were frustrated by limited integration options. A few were facing the uncomfortable reality that their systems were reaching end-of-life.
Yet despite recognising the shortcomings, many firms remain hesitant to make a move.
Why?
Because changing a PMS isn't viewed as an exciting technology opportunity.
It's viewed as a business-wide disruption.
Through a Finance hat, a PMS replacement can look like a significant investment. Through an IT hat, it may feel like a necessary modernisation project. Through a fee earner's hat, it can be seen as unwelcome disruption. And through a Managing Partner's hat, it's often all of those things at once.
For many firms, the prospect of replacing a PMS feels a little like deciding to renovate the foundations of your house while continuing to live in it!
Everyone knows it probably needs doing.
Nobody is looking forward to it.
Delegates shared experiences of replacement projects taking anywhere from 18 months to two years from initial research through to go-live, consuming vast amounts of leadership time along the way. Several noted that the project inevitably diverts senior stakeholders away from billable work and day-to-day responsibilities.
The result is that many firms continue to postpone decisions, hoping for a clearer path forward.
The irony, of course, is that waiting rarely makes the challenge any smaller.
The Myth of the Perfect System
One of the most refreshing moments in the discussion came when the group collectively acknowledged a truth that many software vendors would probably rather avoid: There is no perfect practice management system.
And perhaps there shouldn't be.
No two law firms operate in exactly the same way. Different specialisms, structures, growth plans, cultures and processes mean that every firm prioritises different things.
The firms represented around the table had reached a similar conclusion. Rather than searching endlessly for a solution that ticks every box, many were focused on finding one that satisfies most requirements while providing the flexibility to adapt around the edges.
This is where integration became a major talking point.
The ability for systems to communicate effectively with the wider technology stack was consistently viewed as more important than the functionality of any individual platform.
The message was clear: today's PMS needs to act as the heart of the firm, connected to every other system through strong integration capabilities and open APIs.
Because in reality, few firms want a single technology platform.
They want a connected ecosystem.
"One PMS Away From Retirement"
The discussion also highlighted how people's relationship with technology often depends on the hat they're wearing.
Some wear the hat of a change champion. Others wear the hat of a cautious realist. And, as one delegate joked, a few colleagues may be just "one PMS away from retirement".
This comment drew laughter and knowing nods from around the room.
The humour landed because there was truth behind it.
While discussions around technology often focus on systems and functionality, delegates repeatedly returned to the human reality of change.
Not everyone experiences change in the same way.
Some people actively seek it out.
Others tolerate it.
Some avoid it whenever possible.
There was plenty of discussion about whether younger generations are naturally more open to new technology than their more experienced colleagues. While many felt there was some truth in that observation, others challenged it with examples of highly tech-savvy senior partners and change-resistant junior staff.
Ultimately, the group concluded that age is often less important than mindset.
What mattered more was recognising that every technology programme introduces a degree of uncertainty and discomfort.
The firms most likely to succeed are those that acknowledge that reality rather than dismiss it.
The AI Rush: Solving Problems or Following the Crowd?
Discussion then shifted to AI, where opinions proved even more varied.
Switching hats again produced some fascinating contrasts.
Wearing a Managing Partner's hat, AI represented efficiency and competitive advantage. From a Compliance perspective, it raised questions around governance and risk. Viewed through a People or HR lens, entirely different concerns emerged around skills, development and the future shape of legal careers.
Around the table sat enthusiasts, sceptics, early adopters and cautious observers.
Some firms are already embedding AI deeply into everyday processes. Others are still exploring their options. Many of the SME, high-street firms find themselves somewhere in the middle.
Interestingly, the biggest concern wasn't whether AI works.
It was whether firms are adopting it for the right reasons.
Several participants observed that some organisations feel pressured to "do something with AI" simply because everyone else appears to be doing so.
Nobody wants to be left behind.
But several leaders questioned whether chasing technology without a clearly defined business problem risks creating more noise than value.
As one attendee put it, some firms may be guilty of doing the wrong thing for the right reason.
The conversation quickly moved away from futuristic visions of AI replacing lawyers and towards a more practical question: Are firms fully utilising the AI capabilities already available within their existing technology stack?
For many, the answer was no.
The consensus was that significant efficiencies remain untapped within tools firms already own. Perhaps this needs to be maximised before smaller firms start trialling large legal AI giants!
Why Are Firms Still Working in Silos?
One of the more surprising insights was how fragmented AI adoption can be within a single firm.
Across departments, individuals are testing new use cases, exploring different tools and discovering valuable efficiencies.
Yet much of that knowledge stays hidden.
People learn, they experiment, they solve problems. Then they tell nobody.
Several delegates highlighted the value of AI champions, working groups and cross-department forums where teams can openly share lessons learned, successful use cases and cautionary tales.
The challenge isn't always discovering useful AI applications - sometimes it's simply ensuring the rest of the firm hears about them.
The Question Nobody Could Fully Answer
When AI governance entered the conversation, heads nodded around the table.
Every firm represented had AI policies. Most had detailed guidance documents.
Yet the same question emerged time and again: How do you know if people are actually following the rules?
The discussion uncovered a challenge many firms are quietly grappling with. Technology moves faster than governance.
Even with robust policies, understanding how AI is being used day-to-day remains difficult.
One particularly interesting approach shared by a delegate involved incorporating AI usage into performance reviews. Not as a compliance exercise, but as a conversation.
The idea generated significant interest because it recognised something important: Governance is ultimately about behaviour, not documentation.
What Happens to the Next Generation of Lawyers?
Perhaps the most thought-provoking conversation of the day had little to do with technology itself.
It centred on people.
Specifically, the lawyers who will shape the future of the profession.
Delegates discussed how AI is increasingly taking responsibility for tasks traditionally performed by trainees, junior lawyers and paralegals. Note-taking, drafting, research and administrative work can now be completed more quickly and often at lower cost.
From a business perspective, that's attractive.
From a development perspective, it raises challenging questions.
If junior lawyers no longer perform those foundational tasks, where will they learn the skills that historically prepared them for more senior responsibilities?
The discussion became even more interesting when attendees reflected on how clients themselves are using AI.
Many firms, particularly those in litigation departments, are seeing clients arrive armed with AI-generated documents, legal arguments and online research. While experienced lawyers often feel confident challenging inaccuracies or misconceptions, less experienced lawyers may find those conversations more difficult to navigate.
It prompted a broader debate about how the profession develops expertise in an era where information is abundant but judgement remains invaluable.
No firm claimed to have all the answers. But everyone agreed the question deserves serious consideration, and firms could look inwards at what they could be doing to ensure their next generation of associates and partners aren’t suffering from skills gaps.
The Takeaway: Technology Must Adapt to People
By the end of the sessions, something interesting had happened, the hats had become more than a prop. The conversations had started with software. They ended with people. And the hats had become a reminder that every technology decision in a law firm is viewed different depending on who’s wearing which hat.
Whether discussing practice management systems, AI tools, governance, integrations, procurement or training, every route seemed to lead back to the same place.
Law firms are people businesses.
Technology may enable change, but people determine whether that change succeeds.
For firms evaluating major technology decisions, that may be the most important lesson of all.
The technology itself matters, of course.
But selecting software before understanding people, processes and business objectives is often where projects begin to unravel.
The discussion reinforced a simple point: technology delivers the best results when it's shaped around the way a firm works, rather than asking a firm to reshape itself around the technology.
Conversations acted as a simple reminder that technology should fit the firm, not force the firm to fit the technology.
And judging by the conversations with 20+ firms at the TLC Conference in Birmingham, that's a message resonating with law firm leaders across the sector.
Every firm is different, which is why the most effective solutions are those tailored around the people, processes and ambitions that make each firm unique. At Xperate, that's exactly where we start.