“AI does not replace the lawyer’s judgment, it requires more judgment”

In firms like Pérez-Llorcagenerative AI, end-to-end automation and advanced analytics cease to be isolated initiatives and become strategic infrastructure on which the legal business model of the coming years is built. In this context, the figure of the Legal Tech and Digital Transformation partner goes from “translator” between business and technology to architect of a new firm oriented towards data, product and value.

With this premise, Sarah Molinapartner in the Legal Tech and Digital Transformation area of ​​Pérez-Llorca, argues that the true turning point is not in “using technology”, but in integrating it into the core of the firm’s model to rethink how legal value is created, delivered and captured. More than a simple wave of efficiency, it describes a transition towards productized services, continuous advice, value-based pricing and business intelligence that accurately measures the impact generated for the client.

That vision has direct implications for talent and, in particular, for junior lawyers. Far from the narrative of substitution, Sara Molina emphasizes that well-governed AI increases the quality of service, reduces errors in mechanical tasks and shifts the focus of the young lawyer towards the critical validation of results, the understanding of limits and biases of the models, the technology-business translation and differential human skills such as negotiation or empathy.

At the same time, it places the great competitive gap not in the lack of tools, but in the inability to evolve from isolated pilots towards a systemic, governed and measurable transformation. This means moving from reactive IT to strategic Legal Operations, from fragmented data to true business intelligence and from working in silos to operating in ecosystems with clients, technology providers and partners.

(MCPRO) Sara, from your position as Head of Legal Tech and Digital Transformation at Pérez-Llorca and your experience leading innovation in international firms, what is the turning point that distinguishes firms that manage to differentiate themselves through technology from those that simply use it to comply? Are we facing a change in operational efficiency or in a complete business model? And what tools or paradigms do you consider truly disruptive in 2026?

(Sara Molina) The real turning point is not in “using technology”, but in integrating it into the core of the firm’s business model. Offices that simply comply digitize existing tasks; Those who truly differentiate themselves use technology to rethink how they create, deliver and capture value.

Although many current initiatives pursue operational efficiency, what is actually happening is a progressive transition towards a change in model: more productized services, value-based pricing, more continuous advice and greater traceability of the impact generated for the client.

In recent international forums on AI, an idea has been repeated that explains this moment very well: AI is no longer seen as a specific tool and is beginning to be considered infrastructure. This change in category also forces the legal sector to stop thinking in terms of software and start thinking in terms of strategy.

What is truly disruptive in 2026 is not any specific solution, but the orchestration of capabilities: generative AI connected to legal knowledge and professional validation mechanisms, end-to-end automation of complete workflows, predictive and prescriptive analytics for risk management and pricing, and the consolidation of Legal Operations as a strategic discipline that connects business, processes, data and technology. The challenge is no longer experimenting with AI, but scaling it with data, governance and accountability.

(MCPRO) AI is transforming traditional legal tasks. How do you see the real impact of these technologies on the quality of legal service provision and the employability of junior lawyers? Is there a real risk of trivializing legal work, or on the contrary, does AI free up talent for tasks of greater strategic value? And what responsibilities does a firm assume regarding the risks of bias or hallucinations in AI models applied to legal advice?

(Sara Molina) AI, when well governed, raises the quality of legal service. It provides greater completeness, consistency and error reduction in mechanical tasks such as contractual review, data extraction or regulatory compliance verification. However, this effect is not automatic. It depends directly on how it is used and, above all, on how it is governed.

The real risk is not the trivialization of legal work, but rather the uncritical dependence on the results generated by AI. Technology does not replace judgment; requires more judgment.

In this context, junior employability does not disappear, but its nature does profoundly change. Routine tasks lose weight and critical validation of outputs, understanding the limits of models (biases and hallucinations), the ability to translate technology into legal decisions and differential human skills such as negotiation, empathy and contextualization gain relevance.

From the point of view of professional responsibility, the firm cannot delegate to AI. It must establish mandatory human validation, transparency with the client about the use of these technologies, technological due diligence processes with suppliers and internal governance and incident registration protocols. Effective AI governance does not stop innovation; It is the condition that allows you to climb it with confidence.

(MCPRO) You have led legal operations and process automation initiatives in multiple organizations. What is the gap between what firms are doing today and what they should be doing from a competitiveness perspective? What cultural and organizational changes are really critical for digital transformation to thrive?

(Sara Molina) The main gap is that many offices are still in the isolated pilot phase, while real competitiveness requires systemic transformation. It’s not enough to test tools; It is necessary to build a three or five-year roadmap, with assigned resources, clear leadership and prioritization based on impact.

This gap manifests itself in several aspects: the need to evolve from reactive IT to strategic Legal Operations, move from fragmented data to true business intelligence, move from hourly billing to value-based pricing models and abandon working in silos to collaborate in an ecosystem with technology providers, clients and partners.

The critical changes, therefore, are not technological but organizational: visible leadership from management, transdisciplinary teams, continuous training in digital and process skills, clear transformation KPIs and a customer-focused approach through design methodologies.

(MCPRO) Experience shows us that many digital transformation projects in offices fail not because of technological limitations but because of cultural resistance. As a change leader in legal organizations, what are the biggest roadblocks you encounter? How do you engage partners and senior professionals in a vision for change when your working model has been successful for decades?

(Sara Molina) Experience shows that most failures in digital transformation are not technological, but human. The most common blockages have to do with the bias of past success, the fear of losing autonomy, the deficit in digital literacy, the lack of urgency while the traditional model remains profitable, and doubts about the return on investment.

Engaging senior partners is not achieved with theoretical evangelism, but with evidence and practical experience. It works to show evidence from customers and the market, identify early adopters who act as internal ambassadors, start with quick wins with tangible impact, offer accompanied practical training and align incentives and metrics with transformation objectives.

When change is translated into concrete processes, clear responsibilities and visible benefits, it is no longer perceived as discourse and begins to be perceived as a method.

(MCPRO) Beyond automation, where is intelligent dispatch evolving? Will we talk about “agent lawyers” who operate without human intervention in certain processes? What technological skills are going to be essential for a young lawyer to be competitive in the market?

(Sara Molina) Smart dispatch evolves from a reactive model to a predictive and proactive one. Go from one-off advice to a continuous service based on live compliance, contractual intelligence and real-time monitoring tools. In addition, we are beginning to see specialized agents who can take on limited tasks such as due diligence, contractual review or legal research, always under human supervision in critical decisions.

This is causing the market to begin to wonder which processes can work as a system and which will continue to require human judgment.

For a young lawyer, the essential skills are no longer just legal. You need literacy in AI and data, mastery of legal tech tools, process and project management capacity, ability to translate between technology and business, continuous learning mentality, differential human skills and regulatory knowledge in subjects such as AI, data protection and cybersecurity.

The competitive difference in 2026 is not in having AI, but in what dispatch model is built with it. Because the future is not AI against lawyers, but lawyers augmented by AI against those who continue to operate without it.