Do law firms need AI wellbeing officers?

This concern sits alongside a broader wellbeing question. As this writer opined earlier this month, AI can reduce time spent on operational and process-driven work, but whether those productivity gains will translate into more time away from work or simply more work remains an open question. As the profession has long been aware, employees want structural changes, including cultural change and reduced billable targets, rather than wellbeing initiatives being treated as “add-ons”.

Taken together, legal employers shouldn’t view AI adoption as solely a technology or productivity issue. Managing uncertainty, preserving meaningful junior development, and ensuring efficiency gains support sustainable workloads suggest wellbeing should remain part of the profession’s AI conversation.

One possible way to do this is through the employment of an AI wellbeing officer.

What an AI wellbeing officer would look like

Neal Woolrich, a director analyst in Gartner’s HR practice, has recently discussed the concept of an AI wellbeing officer with clients at a conceptual level and argued that the enactment of such a role would focus on the “psychological and safety aspects of AI implementation”, including monitoring workforce wellbeing and providing support where concerns arise.

On top of generalised anxiety around the advent of AI and what it means for the labour force, Woolrich said, employees are also increasingly concerned about whether their organisations are using AI ethically and responsibly, making an AI wellbeing officer a potential focal point for those concerns.

VIEW ALL

For law firms, where AI adoption is accelerating across research, drafting, discovery, and other workflows, the role could provide a “check and balance” within broader AI implementation.

Its purpose would be to act as “a counterweight” to functions primarily focused on growth, productivity, and efficiency, Woolrich said, while helping ensure employee concerns are incorporated into AI governance.

He added that the emergence of the concept reflects the speed and scale of AI’s impact on the workforce.

“AI’s impact is spreading so rapidly and profoundly across the workforce that a business-as-usual approach is not sufficient,” he said.

For firms considering the role, Woolrich emphasised that it should not be created in isolation. A strong governance framework should underpin it, with clearly defined responsibilities, reporting lines, and measures of success. He also recommended that an AI wellbeing officer report directly to either the CIO or CPO, helping ensure the role has sufficient organisational visibility and authority. Moreover, adequate resourcing will also be critical.

Given the pace at which AI is changing workplaces, Woolrich suggested an iterative approach, rather than attempting to establish a perfect framework from the outset.

“Get your ‘minimum viable product’ out quickly, and adapt it as needed,” he said.

For law firms, that could mean beginning with a clearly scoped wellbeing and feedback function, then refining it as AI tools, workplace practices and employee concerns evolve.

Better managing the human impact of AI

Lara Wentworth, a former BigLaw partner now serving as a director of legal coaching business Coaching Advocates (which she co-founded), agreed that lawyers are certainly thinking more deeply about what new technologies mean for vocational pathways in law, but is unconvinced that every law firm will need a dedicated AI wellbeing officer.

What they do need, she said, is a “deliberate strategy” to manage the human impact of AI.

While lawyers “undoubtedly” have some anxiety around AI, Wentworth said, it is not confined to whether such technology will replace their roles. Rather, it stems from uncertainty around what legal roles will look like in years to come, what will constitute individual value as a lawyer, what skills will matter, how career pathways will evolve, and how younger lawyers will be able to develop professional judgement if AI increasingly performs work traditionally used to develop those skills.

“Uncertainty can easily create fear, particularly when people feel change is happening around them rather than with them,” she said.

That makes the question at hand a leadership and supervision issue, as much as a wellbeing issue, Wentworth advised.

“Firms need to create psychological safety for people to voice concerns, communicate openly about change, and help lawyers develop the human capabilities that will become increasingly valuable alongside AI,” she said.

“An AI wellbeing officer could support that, but responsibility for helping people navigate this change cannot be outsourced to one person.”

Five BigLaw firms were approached for their views on the need or otherwise for such a role in legal workplaces. One declined to comment, and the other four did not respond in time for the filing of this story,