Legal tech fails because we treat mindset shifts like software updates

Most law firms approach legal tech like they're buying new printers. They evaluate features, negotiate contracts, and expect immediate productivity gains. But after watching dozens of implementations stall, I think we're solving the wrong problem. Legal tech adoption isn't procurement; it's a mindset transformation disguised as a software purchase.

Vidya Sagar Athota's research on growth mindset in the AI era hits this exactly. Writing in his book "Mind Over Matter and Artificial Intelligence," the University of Notre Dame professor argues that thriving alongside AI requires unlearning first, then building psychological infrastructure to support that change. For lawyers, that means confronting what got us here won't get us there.

The legal profession rewards expertise, precedent, and risk aversion. These served us well for decades. But they also create cognitive rigidity that fights against the iterative, experimental thinking that makes legal tech valuable. When a senior partner who built their reputation on knowing every case by heart suddenly needs to trust an AI research tool, that's not a training problem—it's an identity challenge.

In practice, this shows up as passive resistance. Partners who "forget" to use the new contract analysis platform. Associates who still pull all-nighters because they don't trust the document review AI. Support staff who maintain shadow Excel systems because the new matter management software "doesn't work the way we do things." Each represents someone protecting their existing mental model of how legal work should feel.

Athota emphasizes that organizations must create conditions for psychological safety around this unlearning. For law firms, that means leadership has to model uncertainty and experimentation instead of performing expertise. It means rewarding process improvements, not just billable hours. It means treating technology adoption as professional development, not just efficiency theater.

The design choice we're making isn't really about which legal tech to buy. It's about what kind of legal practice we want to build—one that clings to familiar discomfort or one that grows alongside changing client needs.