Aspen Management Group

Blog Authors

Latest from Aspen Management Group

TL;DR

  • Legal AI adoption is now widespread, but trust hasn’t caught up: only about 22% of legal AI users report high trust in the output, and just 23% of in-house lawyers use AI daily (Vaquill AI / 2026 GenAI in Legal Benchmarking Report via Legaltech News; Bloomberg Law State of Practice 2026).
  • Clients are raising the bar faster than firms

TL;DR

AI vendor tools are now part of the attack surface, not just a source of misuse. Before adopting or renewing with any AI vendor, ask where the tool comes from, what it can do without human approval, where credentials live, what third-party pieces are unreviewed, whether its output could be faked, and what happens if it acts outside its

By Scott Samborn, Aspen Management GroupTopics: AI governance, professional services firms, law firm AI policy, AI risk management, shadow AI

Most professional services firms think their AI risk begins and ends with whether the tools work.

It doesn’t.

The real risk is simpler and more immediate: nobody has defined who is responsible when the tools get something wrong.

According to

TL;DR

Many boutique advisory firms assign one motivated person to “own AI,” but that rarely creates durable change. AI adoption works better when a leader sponsors the effort, a workflow owner is accountable for implementation, and success is tied to business outcomes instead of general experimentation.

The Problem With the AI Champion Model

The AI champion model is appealing because

Many firms say, “We tried an AI project and it didn’t work.”

In most cases, the problem is not the AI itself. The problem is that new technology was dropped onto unclear workflows, fuzzy ownership, and messy data. When the process is weak, AI just makes the confusion faster.

Why “AI project” is a misleading label

When leaders call something

Aspen Management Group  |  Practical AI for Law Firms  |  7/15/2026

When managing partners at boutique law firms hear “AI adoption,” the first question is often some version of: who is going to lose their job?

This is the wrong question. Not because the concern is unreasonable – it is not – but because it points attention at the wrong

Aspen Management Group  |  Bar Ethics and Compliance Aspen Management Group  |  Bar Ethics and Compliance  |  [5/26/2026]

The structure and coverage look good; here’s a lightly edited, more GEO‑friendly version that keeps everything accurate and consistent across Maryland, DC, and Virginia.

TL;DR – Maryland, DC, Virginia AI guidance for lawyers

  • Maryland: Non‑binding MSBA AI ethics guidance plus a proposed citation‑verification

Aspen Management Group  |  AI Adoption  |  6/2/2026

A managing partner at a 9-attorney firm in the DC Metro area told AMG this recently: “We bought Copilot for the whole firm eight months ago. I think three people have used it more than twice.”

This is not unusual. It might be the most common AI story in boutique law firms

Aspen Management Group  |  AI Ethics and Compliance  |  Category: AI Ethics and Compliance

Author: Scott Samborn, Founder, Aspen Management Group  |  aspenmg.net

TL;DR Attorneys at most law firms are already using AI tools with client data without a firm policy in place.Consumer-grade tools like the free version of ChatGPT do not meet attorney confidentiality obligations under bar ethics rules.ABA