From Initiative to Inertia: Inside the Black Box of Patterns That Undermine Legal Innovation

We’ve all seen it happen. Maybe it’s happening right now.

A client makes a polite but pointed comment. A competitor shows up with a dashboard or a portal or something that looks vaguely futuristic. Suddenly, there’s a whisper in the corridor: “We should probably look into this.” And just like that, a transformation project is born.

Except it’s not really a project. Not yet. It’s a hunch, a gut feeling, a reaction. It might even be a real opportunity – but it rarely starts as a strategy. Sound familiar?

If you’ve ever found yourself on the fringes (or deep in the mess) of a legal innovation initiative, you know exactly how this story unfolds. This is our regular approach to transformation – and it’s exactly why we keep ending up with tools no one uses, partners who’ve lost interest, and people quietly checking out. Let’s break it down. Not to shame the effort, but to finally get honest about why we’re burning energy, time, and credibility. And more importantly, how we might start doing better – not just louder.

How It Starts: The Lone Spark

It usually begins with one engaged partner – often well-meaning, sometimes genuinely forward-thinking. They’ve heard something, seen something, or had something requested by a major client. The pressure’s on. So, they pull in a few trusted associates, maybe a secretary, someone from IT, possibly BD, maybe a junior project lawyer if one happens to be floating around.

These people are now a “working group.” No clear mandate, no budget, and certainly no time carved out for the effort. Everyone’s still billing as if nothing else is happening. There’s no defined ownership, no internal briefing, no roadmap. Just the instruction to “look into it and report back.”

At this point, no one has asked where this topic should actually sit in the firm. Heads of department aren’t consulted – especially if they’re from the non-legal side. Hierarchies are bypassed. And already, the project carries a hidden cost: confusion and resentment.

The Side Hustle Project

Over the next few weeks (or months), the “project” exists in the margins. People share updates in the hallways or in scattered Teams chats. No one really knows what’s going on. There’s no communication strategy – just casual oversharing or, worse, strategic silence.

Soon, others in the partnership hear whispers. Some feel excluded. Others start wondering why this is even happening at all. A few even push back – not necessarily because they disagree, but because they weren’t asked. The transformation is already politicised.

Meanwhile, the group begins evaluating internal tools. “Could we just tweak what we already have?” they ask. But law firm IT landscapes aren’t built for tweakability. They’re fragmented, decentralised, and chronically understaffed. IT expresses justified concern about workload and integration – only to be labelled unhelpful. That’s a classic mistake.

What happens next? IT gets benched. They’re now a perceived bottleneck, not a strategic partner. And we’re still pretending this is a real project.

Enter: The Vendors

This is when external providers appear, polished and optimistic. Their decks are full of promises. Integration? Easy. Adoption? Sure. Profitability? “Absolutely—we’ve done this for [insert peer firm here].”

But here’s the truth: vendors, rightly so, are trying to sell. They often understand the challenges better than we do – but they’re not going to spotlight the hard parts unless we force the conversation. And we usually don’t.

Why? Because we don’t know what we need. We don’t know which workflows this touches. We don’t know which stakeholders it will affect. We don’t know how many people will use it, how pricing should be structured, or what success even looks like. So the provider sells “integration.” But they’ll define it in a way that makes success not their responsibility. They’ll be paid either way. And the law firm? It’s still making decisions through the same working group that kicked this off in the first place.

“The sale of legal tech software is structurally particularly challenging (complex technical sales): The product often needs to be sold to the client along with implementation support and process instructions. This leads to long sales cycles, especially with large clients, where tender processes and internal change management often have to be navigated. (…)” (translated from German, Legal Tech Monitor 2025)

The Fast Track to Board Approval

Eventually, if the partner has enough internal weight – or if the RFP cycle is looming – they’ll bring it to the Managing Partner or Management Board. The pitch? “DIY would cost too much and take too long. Here’s a shortcut.”

At this stage, it’s still not a real project. There’s no proper budgeting, no consideration of resource capacity, no communication plan. Just a product, a price, and a pressure point.

And the board? They approve it. Because it looks cheaper than doing nothing.

Implementation: Where Everything Breaks

Now the tool is bought, and suddenly, reality hits.

IT is reintroduced, reluctantly. Legal teams disengage – after all, the technical bit isn’t their job. Non-legal staff struggle to justify the time they’re spending. People go on holiday. Competing projects collide. Training is scheduled without understanding actual workflows. Key stakeholders are still in the dark.

If a client initiated the whole thing, they’re now asking for updates. Their patience is thin. “This should be market standard by now,” they say. And they’re right.

Internally, tension builds. People burn out. HR gets involved – for the first time – after someone hands in their notice. By the time the provider is threatening to walk because they’re losing money on support hours, we’re in crisis mode.

The result? A tool nobody wanted, nobody owns, and nobody uses.

What’s Actually Failing?

Let’s be honest: it’s not the tech.

It’s that we launch strategic projects with no strategy. We try to modernise without touching culture. We manage change without any change leadership.

Here’s what consistently goes wrong:

• External pressure triggers internal chaos
• No joint partnership vision
• No ownership, no structure
• No communication strategy
• No project management
• No cultural integration

What Does the Regular Approach Really Cost?

At first glance, it seems cheap. You patch together a group, ask for internal goodwill, skip the external advisory fees, and roll with a vendor pitch that promises easy ROI. But what looks like thrift is often just cost deferral. And these hidden costs? They always catch up. Let’s break down where law firms bleed value when they choose the default path over a structured, value-driven approach like the Transformation Readiness Approach by tact:

1. Reputational Damage – When People Start Talking

Internally people feel ignored, misled, or burned out. They disengage – and they talk. Externally clients notice delays. Vendors gossip. Departing staff share their experience. Trust erodes.

Hidden Cost: Lost client confidence, weakened pitch credibility, lower perceived value in RFPs.

2. Time Lag – The Most Expensive Line Item No One Tracks

The regular approach generates endless side conversations and fix-it meetings. Meanwhile, workarounds are built, training happens with no outcome, and people’s calendars implode.

Hidden Cost: Weeks of wasted time, productivity leakage, partner frustration.

3. Trust Erosion – Culture Takes the Hit

Every failed project hardens resistance to the next one. “Why bother?” becomes the mood. Champions step back. Others disengage entirely.

Hidden Cost: Internal resistance increases. The emotional and political cost of innovation spikes.

4. Training with No Return

People attend training, but if the tool doesn’t integrate or doesn’t solve anything meaningful, it’s time burned. Worse: they’ll resist the next training even more.

Hidden Cost: Wasted hours, lost billables, lower engagement.

5. Tool Cost Without Efficiency Gain

The software is paid for. The licenses are activated. But real usage? Minimal. Integration? Shallow. Outcomes? None.

Hidden Cost: Negative ROI. Recurring costs. Support hours wasted.

6. Workflow Workarounds

When tech doesn’t fit the process, people invent workarounds. They copy-paste. They re-key data. They stall client delivery.

Hidden Cost: Time waste, quality dips, inefficiency becomes the new normal.

7. Damaged Future Positioning

After one or two failed efforts, your next transformation pitch starts with a credibility gap. Buy-in takes longer. People ask tougher questions. Risk appetite drops.

Hidden Cost: Delay in future strategy execution. Cost of “talk fatigue.”

Can You Measure This?

So Where Do We Go From Here?

We don’t need to slow down. But we do need to structure our ambition. Before launching your next shiny initiative, ask yourself:

• Do we actually know what problem we’re solving?
• Have we aligned the partnership on the “why”?
• Is anyone in charge – really?
• Do we have a communication plan?
• Are workflows, old and new, as well as roles mapped?
• Have we scoped not just the tool, but the effort and resources?

If the answer is “not really,” pause. Not to kill momentum, but to protect it. Strategic optionality doesn’t begin with tech – it begins with clarity. With ownership, honesty, and structure.

And if, reading this, you’re thinking: We’ve had training that no one used. We’ve seen internal blowback. We’ve lost steam after a vendor walked away. We’ve had a project no one mentions anymore… – then congratulations. You’ve already spotted the smoke.

These experiences aren’t just unfortunate side effects. They’re diagnostics. Each one is a loud, clear signal that the way projects have been handled lacked professionalism, planning, and partnership alignment. Even more dangerously: the longer this goes unnoticed, the more normal it becomes.

That’s the real cost. It’s not just time lost or tools shelved. It’s credibility burned, trust frayed, client confidence weakened, and your next strategic move already compromised before it begins. The price isn’t on one invoice – it’s everywhere in the system.

Let’s not wait for another post-mortem.
Let’s lead smartly while we can.
Let’s stay in control.

_{Foto von Pixabay / pexels.com}