AI in Legal Tech: Hype or Real Value? The Only Way to Know Is to Experiment

The legal industry is at an inflection point with AI. Tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and embedded AI features in major legal software are all promising to revolutionize how lawyers work. But are these built-in AI tools truly delivering transformative value, or are they just incremental upgrades with a shiny new label?

Al Hounsell, National Director of AI, Innovation & Knowledge at Gowling WLG, raised an important challenge on the Legal Innovation Spotlight podcast: To determine whether these AI tools are worth adopting, lawyers need to actively experiment with them. It’s not enough to rely on marketing claims or vendor demos—real insights come from hands-on experience.

Why Hands-On AI Testing Matters

Becoming familiar with AI tools isn’t just about using them—it’s about understanding how different models work. The capabilities of AI tools can vary significantly based on the model and its configurations. For instance, using Perplexity or ChatGPT-o3 mini with search enabled can yield much better research results than a default AI prompt. Lawyers who grasp these distinctions can leverage AI more effectively for legal research, drafting, and analysis.

I recently heard a lawyer describe how she asked ChatGPT to provide case law examples of people who were served via social media when no other avenues were available. She gave the response poor grades, as it failed to surface relevant cases. However, when I ran the same prompt using Perplexity, the results were far more accurate. When I shared the findings with her, she confirmed that Perplexity’s research was spot on. This experience highlights the need for experimentation, but also the value of seeking best practices from experts. A resource like Ironwood AI can be extremely valuable in the learning process, helping legal professionals navigate the evolving landscape of AI-powered research and legal work.

There’s a growing gap between lawyers who passively observe AI trends and those who roll up their sleeves and engage. Ethan Mollick, a professor at Wharton, proposes a “10-hour challenge”: Spend ten dedicated hours using AI in real-world tasks to build a working knowledge of its strengths, weaknesses, and best use cases. This approach isn’t just theoretical—it’s essential for making informed technology decisions.

For lawyers, this means:

✅ Running contracts through both a standalone AI tool (like ChatGPT or Claude) and an AI-enhanced legal software to compare outputs.

✅ Researching using Perplexity or ChatGPT o3 mini (with search)

✅ Testing AI-generated legal research to see if it truly surfaces better insights or just speeds up existing processes.

✅ Evaluating whether AI drafting tools actually improve efficiency or just add another layer of review work.

The Tradeoff Mindset: Are These Tools Worth It?

At Ironwood AI, we emphasize that technology decisions are about tradeoffs, not perfect solutions. Built-in AI features may integrate more seamlessly into existing workflows but often come at a premium. Meanwhile, standalone AI tools like ChatGPT may be more flexible and cost-effective but require more manual oversight. The key is knowing when the tradeoffs make sense for your firm’s specific needs.

Experiment Smarter with Ironwood AI

If you’re a lawyer or legal professional looking to cut through the AI noise, Ironwood AI can help. We offer:

🚀 Hands-on AI workshops.

🛠️ Weekly Zoom Advisory Sessions.

📊 Custom AI implementation strategies to optimize efficiency without overcomplicating your stack.

Don’t wait for AI to be “proven” by someone else—take control of your learning. Book a strategy call with Ironwood AI today and start making AI work for you.