Defining Responsibility is the Key to Successful AI Adoption

Successful AI adoption begins with clearly defining responsibility before selecting an AI tool, as Malbek General Counsel Colin Levy writes. Over the past year, a clear pattern has emerged around failed implementations. The problem is rarely the underlying model. Instead, breakdowns occur when responsibility, oversight, and accountability are poorly defined once AI is introduced. 

Judgments about tools that appear effective during evaluation can be distorted if human skepticism and validation are sidelined. Instead, requirements around authentication, data residency, system dependencies, and compliance should be clearly defined and documented.

Complicating matters, most organizations do not buy AI in isolation. AI capabilities often arrive bundled with platform upgrades or system integrations. At the same time, vendor claims are uneven, with demonstrations tending to highlight idealized data rather than the realities legal teams manage every day. Without clear objectives and guardrails, adoption can easily prioritize appearance over performance.

Moreover, AI is frequently layered onto workflows that it does not fit. Data preparation is often undervalued, and little attention is given to how systems behave when information is incomplete, inconsistent, or contradictory. Successful AI adoption means framing responsibility to avoid these pitfalls and shifting accountability earlier.

More durable approaches start with firm technical and data boundaries, realistic implementation timelines, and scrutiny of how systems handle uncertainty. Roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined, specifying what internal teams should do, what the vendor should handle, and how any deviations will impact cost. Just as important is designing systems that continue to function if AI features degrade. It is important to reinforce human judgment rather than attempting to replace it.

Selecting AI for legal operations is about aligning technology with workflows, risk tolerance, and professional judgment. Teams that plan for governance, failure modes, and exit conditions from the outset are better positioned to realize value without surrendering control over how legal decisions are made.