Here's a prediction that's been making the rounds: small law firms will leapfrog BigLaw in AI adoption by mid-2026.

Before we dig in, let's define terms.

When I say "boutique" or "small firm," I mean generally under 50 attorneys — often under 20.

Decisions get made by 1-3 partners.

There's no formal AI committee.

"BigLaw" means 50+ attorneys, often 100 or more.

Multiple practice groups, formal governance, technology committees, legacy system dependencies.

Now, the data.

An estimated 53% of small firms and solo practitioners integrated generative AI into their workflows in 2025.

The tools they're using cost $50-200 per month.

A solo can evaluate, purchase, and deploy a new AI tool in an afternoon.

That same decision at a 200-attorney firm requires vendor security review, committee approval, partner buy-in, IT integration planning, and change management.

By the time your AI committee finishes deliberating, a boutique has already deployed what you're still evaluating.

But here's the counterintuitive data point.

Firms with 51+ attorneys are actually using AI at roughly twice the rate of smaller firms.

Why?

Enterprise AI tools cost $1,000 or more per month.

Small firms can't always justify that spend for occasional use.

And BigLaw has advantages that still matter.

Dedicated IT and security teams who can properly vet tools.

Budget for training and change management.

Enterprise integrations with existing DMS, billing, and matter management systems.

Risk tolerance to experiment with multiple tools simultaneously.

The problem isn't capability.

BigLaw has the resources.

The problem is speed to deployment.

Large firms are buying tools that sit unused while they work through adoption logistics.

See exactly how your existing tools connect, and get a custom implementation blueprint for your firm.

Look, as I see it, this isn't really about firm size at all.

It's about decision layers.

How many people need to approve before you can test something?

The "small firm mindset" any firm can adopt:

Empower team leads to pilot tools without firm-wide approval.

Scope pilots to one workflow, 2-3 stakeholders, two weeks maximum.

Measure results, then decide whether to expand.

We worked with a 200-attorney firm that was stuck in what I'd call evaluation paralysis.

Instead of pushing for a firm-wide rollout, we scoped a two-week pilot with one practice group.

Three stakeholders, one workflow.

The results spoke for themselves.

That pilot expanded to three other teams within 90 days.

The firms that win in 2026 won't be the biggest or the smallest.

They'll be the fastest to deploy and iterate.

Here's something you can try regardless of firm size.

Client intake to matter opening — fully automated.

The basic version: Any general-purpose AI drafts an initial conflict check memo and matter classification from your intake form.

A human reviews, approves, and routes.

Result: 30-60 minutes saved per new matter.

The integrated version: Connect your intake form to your CRM and matter management system using a tool like n8n or Zapier.

When a prospect fills out your website form, the workflow automatically creates a contact in your CRM, generates a conflict check memo using AI, schedules a consultation on your calendar, and sends a personalized follow-up email.

No manual data entry.

No lead falling through the cracks.

Firms running this kind of integrated workflow report cutting intake processing from over an hour to under 20 minutes per matter.

That's 3+ hours saved per week for a firm handling just five new matters.

The tools cost $50-200 per month.

A contractor can wire this up in a week.

In a workshop we ran for a litigation team, one senior associate said something that stuck with me.

"I spent three years learning to do research the slow way.

It took me two hours to unlearn it."

That's the real barrier.

Not the technology.

The muscle memory.

The firms rethinking their approval processes now will have a 12-month head start on those still forming committees.

What's the biggest barrier to faster AI deployment at your firm?

A) Committee approval processes take too long

B) IT/security review requirements

C) Partner buy-in and consensus building

D) Integration with legacy systems

E) We're actually deploying pretty quickly

[Reply with your letter choice] - I'll share the results in the next edition.

Here's what I keep coming back to.

Firm size isn't destiny.

The real differentiator is this: how many layers are there between "this tool looks promising" and "let's try it with one team for two weeks"?

If the answer is more than 2-3 people, you've identified your bottleneck.

The good news?

That's a process problem, not a budget problem.

And process problems are fixable.

What's slowing you down?

Hit reply — I'd genuinely like to know.

— Liam Barnes

Wondering how to scope an AI pilot that proves ROI without getting stuck in committee purgatory?

We help legal teams cut evaluation cycles from months to weeks.

Whether it's building custom workflows or running hands-on training that gets your team deploying the same day — we've done this before.

Grab some time to chat

(if you don’t see a suitable time, just shoot me an email [email protected])

How Did We Do?

Your feedback shapes what comes next.
Let us know if this edition hit the mark or missed.

Too vague? Too detailed? Too long? Too Short? Too pink?

👍 Loved it | 👎 Not for me | 💡 I Have a Suggestion

OR: [email protected]

Was this week’s newsletter forwarded to you?

Sign up, it’s free.