Navigating the Human Side of AI Adoption in Public Sector Legal Teams
When Michael Koehler took the stage at Everlaw Connect D.C. for his workshop "Adaptive Leadership for Public Sector Legal Professionals," he posed a provocative question: "Are we solving for the right problem?" As CEO of leadership firm KONU, Koehler understands that AI's greatest challenge for government legal teams isn't the technology itself—it's what the technology asks us to relinquish.
The promise of AI in law—faster research, frontloaded insights, automated analysis—is undeniable. But as Koehler emphasized in his session, public sector adoption stalls when we treat it as purely a technical upgrade rather than the profound professional identity shift it represents.
In this exclusive follow-up with Everlaw, Koehler expands on his conference insights to reveal:
Why technological implementation triggers what adaptive leadership calls "loss work" (letting go of control, familiar routines, even professional pride)
How to create "holding environments" where legal teams can experiment safely amid uncertainty—as demonstrated in his popular conference workshop
The three critical elements that help organizations move through change without burning out their people
For legal leaders navigating this transition, Koehler offers tested frameworks—because the future belongs to teams that can harness both AI's potential and their human capacity for adaptation.
Just as his conference workshop gave public sector professionals tools to work with "heat and conflict," this discussion provides the mindset shifts needed to lead through law's AI inflection point.
You’ve worked extensively with adaptive leadership in complex systems. In your view, what makes AI adoption an adaptive challenge for public sector legal teams—rather than just a technical one?
The technical parts are being solved as we speak: the technology is here and, in many cases, works well—and it’s only getting better. AI adoption becomes adaptive when it requires legal professionals to rethink how they work, learn new practices, and unlearn old ones that no longer serve.
This isn’t just a technical upgrade—it’s a shift in professional identity. Letting go of familiar tasks like research or drafting, and instead supervising an AI system, is challenging. People don’t resist change—they resist loss. And this challenge comes with a lot of losses: Am I being replaced? Will I still be valued? Can I trust the outcome?
When leaders share their own learning journeys, it signals that growth is expected, not punished.
Delegation is already hard for many professionals. With AI, it’s not just about accuracy—it’s about accountability, control, and professional reputation.
For tech teams and early adopters, recognizing this is key. Resistance isn’t always about the usability of the platform—it’s about what the technology represents. Helping people through that emotional and professional shift is essential to successful implementation.
In your workshop at Everlaw Connect D.C., you talked about the importance of “holding environments” to manage heat and uncertainty. What does a healthy holding environment look like inside a government legal department facing rapid tech change?
A holding environment is a space where professionals can do difficult work safely. In law, where the margin for error is narrow, people need room to process change, try new approaches, and learn—without penalty.
Three ingredients matter: story, structure, and relationships.
Story connects change to mission—whether that’s access to justice, public service, or legal equity. But it must also name what’s hard: the loss of control, confusion around roles, and fear of irrelevance. The story is the bigger ‘why’ behind the investments or even the sacrifices.
Structure means creating room to test and reflect—peer cohorts, sandbox pilots, debriefs. This kind of scaffolding is critical in cultures that prize precision. And for tech teams, it’s a way to step outside of product-only thinking and engage more deeply with the human side of change—getting out of “developer mode” and into collaborative problem-solving.
Relationships make the uncertainty bearable. When leaders share their own learning journeys, it signals that growth is expected, not punished. At Connect DC, one judge spoke candidly about learning (and struggling) how to supervise AI systems. That kind of vulnerability builds credibility. Relationships across silos are also essential: between legal and tech, between professionals and community members who interact with the legal system, between policy and implementation, and across hierarchies.
Resistance isn’t always about the usability of the platform—it’s about what the technology represents.
How can government legal professionals begin to distinguish between what needs to be preserved and what needs to be let go—especially in a field like law that’s so rooted in precedent and tradition?
Start with what’s not changing: values, ethics, the core mission. These remain foundational—and may even grow in importance during technological shifts.
Then look at what might need to evolve: outdated tools, assumptions, or processes. Adaptive leadership is about making space to name loss—not just of routines, but of identity, pride, or deeply familiar ways of working.
If these losses go unacknowledged, they don’t disappear. They surface through disengagement, delay, or burnout.
For tech teams: don’t mistake silence for acceptance. Often, what looks like hesitation is actually quiet grief or anxiety. Engaging it directly and gently leads to stronger adoption.
You’ve spoken about the difference between ‘role’ and ‘self’ in leadership. In a government setting, where hierarchy and policy are often rigid, how can professionals bring more of their ‘self’ to their leadership roles in times of change?
In professional environments, it’s easy to conflate a role with one's whole self. But the truth is, others usually don’t see the full human being behind the role—especially when there’s disagreement or resistance. When that happens, people get impatient. And then we get impatient with them. It feels personal.
This isn’t just a technical upgrade—it’s a shift in professional identity.
But a person’s values, integrity, and purpose go far beyond any one job description. Separating “self” from “role” allows professionals to adapt without internalizing every shift as a personal threat.
As Tim O’Brien writes in Harvard Business Review, when professionals over-identify with their roles, even well-intended feedback can feel like a personal affront. Creating that space between who we are and the role we inhabit is essential—especially in times of change.
For those on the implementation side: resistance is rarely about you. It’s about what your role—or your product—represents. Holding that perspective opens the door for empathy and progress.
As legal departments face rising expectations to do more with less, while adapting to tools like AI, what practices would you recommend to help leaders stay grounded, reflective, and resilient over the long term?
Start by challenging the “more with less” narrative. That framing often leads to burnout and blurred priorities. A better approach is to ask: What actually matters right now? What can be released—tasks, habits, or expectations? How can we do what is essential with less?
Resilience doesn’t come from pushing harder. It comes from pausing—through peer check-ins, reflection, or even a moment of stillness before a big decision—to stay anchored in purpose and perspective.
Change brings heat. And AI is not just another software rollout—it’s one of the most significant societal shifts in a generation. Like the pandemic, it will create discomfort, confusion, and pressure across entire systems—not just for individuals, but for teams, organizations, and institutions.
Too often, we treat burnout and overwhelm as individual psychological issues. But this kind of transformation produces systemic heat. Leaders and change agents must learn to manage that heat—through timing, framing, pacing, and sequencing. And in order to manage the system’s heat, they have to know how to manage their own and take rest.
Further Reading
