If you’ve been following discussions on LinkedIn or at recent conferences, you’ve likely heard about Shoosmiths — the UK’s fastest-growing national full-service law firm — and their innovative approach to embracing the AI-enabled candidate. While others focused on deterring and detecting AI use, Shoosmiths chose to embrace AI use in the application process, providing candidates with clear guidance along the way.

Samantha Hope, Shoosmiths' Head of Emerging Talent, is leading the charge. Responsible for sourcing and developing trainee solicitors from initial attraction to qualification, Samantha was one of the first TA leaders to actively advocate for embracing AI in recruitment processes. And she’s joining us today to tell us exactly how she did it. 

This episode will finally give you a clear understanding of how to manage candidate use of AI in Early Careers and beyond –– in a way that’s led by humans, rather than AI fighting AI.

Join host Robert Newry and Samantha as they discuss:

🤖​Embracing AI in a human-led way: Learn how Shoosmiths took a pioneering approach by integrating AI into their processes while maintaining a human-led focus in a typically cautious and traditional industry

⭐Setting expectations for candidates: Hear why clear guidance and support for candidates on AI usage in applications help them understand employer expectations, while helping them to perform to their best ability in the hiring process

💡​Balancing ethical and practical AI use: Learn why Shoosmiths have chosen not to use AI for application screening, and how they’re maintaining a fair and equitable process in the AI era 

🚀​Upskilling for the future: Gain insights on how Shoosmiths are equipping employees with the AI skills necessary for the evolving legal landscape, and how they’re empowering their workforce to remain innovative and competitive

💥​AI as a strategic business tool: Learn how Shoosmiths are leveraging AI in an ethical way to create internal efficiencies and innovate on their talent acquisition process –– all in a bid to help them achieve their strategic business goals, while setting a great example for other organisations to follow

This episode is packed with insights and actionable learnings for talent acquisition leaders navigating the era of the AI-enabled candidate in early careers recruitment. 

Listen now 👇

Transcript:

Robert: Welcome to the TA Disruptors podcast. I'm Robert Neary, CEO and co-founder of Arctic Shores, the task-based psychometric company that helps organisations uncover potential and see more in people.

And in this third series we are focusing on Gen AI and the impact it is having on candidates in how they apply, but also to explore about how for recruiters the impact is coming to really change the way that not just how they assess, but what they assess for. 

And in today's episode is Samantha Hope. Sam and I go back 10 years or so now and Sam is a head of emerging talent at Shoesmiths, the national full service law firm and one of the fastest growing ones in the country. 

Sam you've been at Shoesmiths for 14 years now and in a world where sometimes that can be a little bit and I think in a misleading way frowned upon being at the same organisation. But one of the reasons we're going to have such a good discussion today is because actually you can be in the same place and in the same organisation but still experience a huge amount of change, both because of change within every organisation but also with what's happening around us.

So welcome to the podcast.

Samantha: Thank you. I'm really excited to be here. 

Robert: And we've had a number of discussions over the last 12 months, both online and in person around the impact of Gen.AI on particularly early careers recruitment. And unusually, you have been. and Shoesmiths have been one of the pioneers of actually embracing AI and seeing a bit more of an optimistic view about the impact that AI is going to have both in the place of work but also how candidates will apply too. 

And I wonder if you could just share with us why you were so, and particularly Shoesmiths, were such an early pioneer in embracing this because law firms aren't, traditionally seen as being at the forefront and the bleeding edge of adopting technology. 

Samantha: Yeah, that's right. I think law firms are seen to be more traditional and they have a bit of a reputation for waiting and seeing before jumping forwards. So actually I'm really excited that we were able to pioneer some of this actually in the industry. And actually you mentioned that I've been at Shearsmiths for quite a long time and I think that's a testament to the people and culture of the firm, the values, we'll talk about, but that's an absolutely fundamental principle for our inter-reduction of AI and embracing it because I think it's key to remember in the face of thinking the robots are taking over, they're coming, that actually we're a people business, we're all about providing a service to individuals, to people, going back to the principles about people buy from people. So underlying everything, we have to remember to be human-led in our approach. So that's for me really important as a starting point. And then overlaying AI as a tool on top of those things. 

Robert: So just on that, and I do like the way that and a few people talk about how you keep human-led with the adoption of AI. And for some people that's been, well, we're just not going to adopt AI at all because we're worried that that will somehow take away from the human-led approach. But you saw a slightly different angle to that too. And was that led by a partner or the lead partner or was that something that you were introducing? How did it come about that you wanted to maintain that human-led approach, but also actually bring in generative AI into the way that you use recruitment tools, but also how you advise candidates that they might use it. 

Samantha: Yeah, so I wish I could take the credit for it, but actually the firm had been using traditional AI for a long time and had been using it, for example, to review contracts for clients more efficiently, quicker, and so our CEO David Jackson and two other senior leaders and our business were very forward thinking in their approach to digital. They actually co-authored a book just recently about law in the digital age. And so they were already really at the forefront of what's coming, I guess, with AI. So when we started to think about it for candidates within our team in early careers and talent acquisition, our suppliers started to say,

So do you want to add a tick box so that candidates can say they didn't use ALE? Yes. And that's what got us thinking, okay, right, it's here. So what are we going to do about it? How are we going to approach this? And at first we thought, well, they weren't giving us an option. The suppliers weren't saying are you going to embrace it or are you going to ban it? The just assumption was we would ban it and we wanted to add a tick box because that's what everyone else was doing.

 So that's where our conversation started and internally we started discussing what that world would look like if we were to embrace it and given that we were utilizing in the firm, it seemed a bit odd that we would go down the route saying we were actually going to ban it. Around the discussion time, we were becoming the first law firm to get onto Microsoft's pilot of Copilot. So as a firm, we were starting to have Copilot rolled out and that was integrated into our apps, so PowerPoint there's a co-pilot button within Outlook and Teams. So it's not just a chat function where you're operating in OpenAI, but you're actually utilizing it within your daily work and in a secure environment. So that's really key for us as a law firm, is obviously considering the risk and the ethics around the use of OpenAI. So that's where the conversation started. 

Robert: Yes. Okay, so it was coming from a, well, we're using it and it's gonna be important to our future and therefore why would we stop candidates using it and yet the pressure was in the industry to ban it because actually our processes, and it was no different in law firms from any others, weren't designed for the AI-enabled candidate. And I just want to pick up on your tick box thing because I think it was a very interesting point about why, and this to some extent is, you know, how we should look at new technology anyway, why are we being asked to put a tick box in there? And I'll give you an example recently where part of a session with 100 plus UCL students, and one of the, and the main topic was Gen AI, and how do they use Gen AI in the recruitment process.

And one of the people, one of the students that was on the session, it was all anonymous, wrote in and just said, they just applied for a summer internship at a law firm, clearly not yours, and you'll understand why in a second. And they'd been asked to tick a box that said, have you in any way used AI as part of this application. And the question that came from the student on this, quite rightly, was, I have no idea how to answer that question. 

Because is it a honey trap that they're trying to find out? Because I go onto lots of law firm and other professional services websites and they say they're banning the use of it. Is it that they want to see my skills on all of this and therefore it's a positive thing. Or is it that they just wanna know and it doesn't have any particular requirement to it and it won't affect the suitability of my application? And so they were saying it was just not possible to understand what was from that. And so the reason for highlighting that story, because you must have gone through that thinking too, is if we put that box in there what actually are we trying to find out? And I suppose that was a little bit part of your thinking was actually maybe there's a different way that we want to approach all of this rather than just a tick box. And how did you, once you take the tick box out, what did you then go and do? 

Samantha: And what would we have done with the tick box? Yes. So if candidates had not ticked it, so they were indicating they had used AI, were we going to just not look at the rest of their application. But without giving the guidance about that, you're presuming, and you're kind of giving them the perception that they cannot use it by obviously having that disclaimer in there. But what would we have done with it? Was that a be all and end all of their application to us? And again, why wouldn't we want them to use it? Because we use it in the workplace, so why would we ban it for them? 

So I think it's really difficult for candidates to understand the expectations if we as employers are not providing those expectations. And that was absolutely key for us in embracing it, was to provide guidance. And I think this is really what took off and got Shoesmiths kind of out there a little bit about talking about AI was people recognize that we'd not just embraced it and said, oh, you know, you can use AI if you want. We'd actually produce some quite clear guidance about the do's and don'ts. So you'd given some good guidance on. 

When we were exploring whether to have a disclaimer or to allow it and to produce guidance, we looked to other places to see what they were doing. One of the places that we looked was UCAS, and they did also have a bit of a statement on their website, and it was very much in line with the approach that we wanted to take. When we began to do further research, we found that this aligned with the values of the firm, it aligned with our direction that we wanted to take. It really aligned with us making sure that we were doing something for good, being able to give candidates the best chance. That's what we want to do in the hiring process. Let them shine, give them the best chance of succeeding, and then we will hire those talented individuals. So we wanted to embrace everything about that for the candidate's benefit. 

Robert: Yes, but that doesn't come without some significant risk. And I imagine you had some pushback from some parts of the firm on all of this saying, well, if you use this, then everybody's gonna be writing their cover letters and their application questions in the same way. And how are you gonna be able to distinguish between people? So It's one thing to go, oh, we're using it, and therefore we should embrace it. Quite another to actually build it into the way that you want people to use it in the process. So can you share with some of the challenges that you had to kind of work through? Because I don't imagine it was just a case of, oh yeah, we'll embrace it. And everybody goes, oh, that's fantastic, Sam, off you go. 

Samantha: Yeah, not everybody thought it was fantastic. So despite having really great support from some senior leaders in the business, I did have to answer to quite a number of loaded questions, which went along the lines of, what are you doing to ban it? And again, that was always the assumption was that that was the route that we would take. And I guess a lot of people may have heard that other people were doing that. 

Law firms are notorious for wanting to follow the trend of other larger law firms. And so actually took quite a lot of explanation when I answered with, actually we're not banning it, I don't mind if they use it. And of course once we shared the research we had gathered, we shared the guidance we were producing, we explained why we were taking this route, people were on board and very quickly came around to understanding why we were taking this approach, which was lovely because it reaffirmed of course, everything that we'd been doing and reassured us that we were doing the right thing. And conversations like with yourself and other industry professionals really helped us to embed that. 

Robert: Yes, and I think the research is important around this because I know you did some of your research which was similar to ours on this, that you found quite a high usage of gen AI in application processes. So people were using it and it makes sense for them to use it because if it's, my analogy has always been that it's like a calculator and we don't mind calculators being used in exams, so why would we have an issue with GenAI tools being used in the application process? So you knew people were using it, but also that creates a challenge of how do you detect whether they're using it sensibly or not? And so I think you did quite a lot of research, didn't you, into that people are using it, and if we find that they're using it, the tools for detecting it and therefore whether you're going to reject an application weren't particularly reliable. 

Samantha: Yeah, so early on the research shows that people want to use it. And it also shows that candidates who come against a process where they're told not to use it or it's banned don't perceive that firm or business to be very forward thinking. They don't perceive it to be innovative. It doesn't attract them to apply. So there's a marketing sense to embracing it as well.

We researched into the detection of it. And yeah, very quickly realized there was nothing reliable out there that would help us to detect the use of it. And I think that's more important perhaps for people who are trying to ban it. But how are they detecting it? Because I think chat GPT itself only reached a 26% accuracy rate when they tried to detect their own stuff. 

Yes. And really absolutely loved listening to the scientists that you had about the University of Reading and they infiltrated into the exam papers using 100% chat GPT information or copy and paste. And I think it was 94% undetected. You were undetected. And that's crazy. So it's at the moment you can't detect it. So like almost why try?

The way that we introduced it on the application form, I would describe as fairly light touch, is a very small part of our larger recruitment process and it was introduced as one question. So we said that candidates could use AI to help them elevate their application. But we really enforce that we valued their own genuine thoughts and opinions. And that by using their own thoughts and opinions, they would score higher naturally on our application form. And that has always been the case. 

Candidates who make it personal to themselves, who can see themselves in the role, who demonstrate that understanding of us as a business, they will always score higher. So that is still true but we expected that by embracing it, we would get some individuals who did utilize the old copy and paste, the lazy or poor use of embracing AI, I guess. And the question that we asked would be suitable for people who had used AI? and for people who didn't. Nobody was scored down for not using it. And no one was scored up specifically for using it either. It was about how they explained in this particular answer their knowledge of AI and how it influenced the legal industry going forwards. And it's a topical trend and that's important knowledge for them to know. So we think it's really important to elaborate that we weren't scoring people down or up based on just, oh, they ticked a box, say they used AI or they didn't but it was their wider knowledge and how that impacts them. 

Robert: Yeah. And that transparency is so important in this, and you've been brilliant on this and, and, you know, it's I don't just say that, because you're here in front of me, but actually you have absolutely pioneered and set the example of how you can be transparent around this, because you produced a video that made it very clear that you happy for AI to be used in the recruitment process, but you still wanted the, the individual to bring through their own personality in their own take on why they'd be interested in working in a firm like Shoesmiths. And then you publish it on your website too as well, so there's a whole blog on there too giving very very clear of what is good use and bad use in there. And what kind of feedback have you had from that? both from candidates, maybe from the rest of the industry too, because again, you were really early on in doing that and it was different from what everybody else was doing. 

Samantha: And it did feel a bit risky, it felt a bit risky, particularly as well because a lot of people asked us, well, that's fine, you're saying detection tools aren't available or they're not reliable, how are you detecting it and scoring it then?

So I don't profess to be an amazing human detector of AI better than AI itself, but because we weren't specifically scoring people up or down for the use of AI, like we weren't really detecting it in that way. But I guess the sort of before the feedback comes, it's the, what did we see out of those applications? And we saw around a third of our applicants who expressed in the answer that they had utilised AI in some way. We also saw a slight elevation in scores across our application forms. 

Robert: Okay, elevations in terms of cognitive scores or just in your scores of what good looks like from an application. 

Samantha: Yeah, so specifically in relation to the long answer questions on the application form. So some of those questions are a bit more personal statement, like why are you applying to Shoesmiths? And this is where the AI question sat as well. And this was where the candidates would have mostly used to chat or any of the AIs to help them refine or do their answers. So we saw a slight elevation, but there's many other factors that could have been taken into account for that as well. So it can't all be credited to AI. But again, we wanted to see candidates shine at their best. That's a good thing for us. 

Robert: And sorry, just on that too, the, and it's really interesting, A, that you discovered about a third were using it and it was a slight elevation. And I think that's amazing in the sense of slight elevation because the, again, the assumption from all the scaremongers out there and the people who convinced that you know, you open the floodgates to it, that you're just going to get somebody the other day said to me a sea of sameness. And you will get a sea of sameness if you've not given good guidance. And so if you've seen a slight elevation, as opposed to everybody giving an application that looked amazing, and it was hard to distinguish, then then actually you've really achieved what you wanted to achieve, because there will be those people who now are using, of those 30% that used it, because they're dyslexic or dyspraxic or they come from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds and don't have a parent, a teacher, somebody who can look through their application and improve it. And so you've got another group of people whose applications were improved by using it more sensibly. Is that how you, because that's what it, that's the significance of what you've just said there. To me, it's really important. It was just a slight increase rather than just a massive increase because then you actually achieved the objective of all of this. 

Samantha: Yeah, it didn't make our screening impossible. Yes. Not everybody got a hundred percent score, which still made it possible for us to screen. I think the, I think your research, Arctic Shores research shows that candidates who have neurodiversity or actually different demographics like black candidates typically utilize AI more than other candidates. And our research showed that as well. So our looking back at the candidates who did say they had used it, we saw an uptick in certain groups using it more. And that again, just reassures us that it's the right thing to do. If the candidates are using it to help them level the playing field, they're using it as a tool to assist them to shine at their best. That's a really positive thing. And that's a huge pool of talent out there that other people may not be accessing if they're shutting the doors to Ai and banning it, then those candidates will be put off. And what does that make them think about whether they'll be able to use those tools in the workplace long term? 

Robert: And that's all what we've been trying to achieve, you know, in the last, particularly in the last 10 years is to support you know, broader parts of the community to have access to, you know, great jobs at the likes of Shoesmiths. So, you know, that's a really important part of all of this that we don't reverse the good work that's been done on this. But one other question I'm sure a few people are thinking about too then is that you've used AI or you've let candidates use AI.

And how has that changed the way that you're thinking? You've not used AI in your process around this too. And so there's two sides to the coin on this one. You've embraced AI and said candidates can use it. But how is that on your side? Are you embracing more uses of AI? Are you being quite careful about how you actually use AI to screen candidates?

Samantha: So when chat started about AI, I thought this is great. We can now screen 3,000 applications using AI in a few minutes. Like how much of a time saver and money saver is that? But of course, once I started to look into it and dig into it, it's not as simple as that. And we do not screen using AI, we use our human eyes. 

Robert: So 3,000 applications so. All sort of typed in are reviewed by a person. 

Samantha: That's right, yeah, by our team, Emerging Talent. And yeah, we very quickly discovered research that showed that that AI could be quite biased because it's relying on the information that's input can deliver hallucinations as we know, it's not always factually accurate. And that goes back to the detection piece as well. It's shown that it's been detecting AI use when there was none. And how would we, or would we really be able to explain how an algorithm is selecting candidates to progress to the next stage? I think it's quite difficult to do that. 

So at the moment, our research suggests that it is not a great use of AI in an ethical way. And so we are not using it. I'm sure there will be a time that comes. And I wonder at what point we will discover that AI is less biased than a human screener. 

Robert: Yep. And it's interesting that, isn't it? Because we know that humans are full of bias and that's just not necessarily a bad thing, it's just how evolution has helped us deal with the world and the complexities of it. The interesting bit is, I saw a piece of research a while back that said when a human looks at a CV, there's up to 150 different biases at play. And so this worry about AI bias is nothing necessarily new. The difference is that it's automated. And the other thing is we don't know what the bias might be that's built into there. And I think that's, you're right on that one, that if we are going to be using any kind of automation, it doesn't have to be artificial intelligence, but any kind of automation in our recruitment process we have to be able to interrogate and monitor any algorithm that's being used to be able to determine is bias creeping in there. Because it's got to move us forward. It's, you know, AI that just repeats human bias, it just doesn't achieve anything. 

Samantha: Yeah, exactly that. We've worked so hard as an industry to remove as much bias from the process. And we have fantastic tools in place to help us do that. We have lots of different processes through the recruitment and selection process. So from blind CVs, you know, removing data from the CVs so the screeners can't see it, contextualize recruitment blind CV interviews as well, so the interviewers don't know the information. But there's so many different parts of that process where we've tried to remove the bias. So I do feel like at the moment, that could be a step back. Yes. And not forwards. But I am sure a time will come when it becomes a step forward for us. 

Robert: Yes, and it's just embracing that when you are comfortable, that you can understand all the elements behind it. And I think that's a very sensible approach, that there has to be transparency in the way that you're, as a recruiter, using AI as much as giving transparency as to how you expect the candidate to be using AI.

Having said all of that, I know as a next step, you're quite keen to see AI skills being assessed in the recruitment process. So, you know, you were referring to, you referred to earlier that you used Microsoft Copilot. So when somebody starts at Shoesmith, they are going to be using generative AI tools. So can you share what some of your thinking is in around, I saw you put out a poll on LinkedIn asking others, should we be assessing gen AI skills in the recruitment process? And if so, how? 

Samantha: Yeah, so that's really exciting. The next steps of AI and a lot of businesses aren't even at those early steps yet of embracing it. So I do feel like we're stepping in the right direction at quite a fast rate, which is exciting. But it's going to be quite a pace of change for candidates, for universities to start upskilling individuals and for businesses to make sure that they have the infrastructure. So I guess there's a real starting point to this is to mention that as law firms, we recruit really far in advance. 

Robert: Of course, it's like two or three years. 

Samantha: Yeah, so if the trainee solicitors that I'm actively recruiting now, they don't actually start as a trainee until another two years. When they qualify as a solicitor, it will be 2029. And the solicitor apprentices I'm recruiting now, they'll qualify in 2031. So, you know, we're five more years off of that will we want them to have in that five plus years? Well, absolutely want them to use AI because we're using it today. It's not a skill of tomorrow, it's absolutely today. So that's a real starting point for the direction of travel here. And I think universities are struggling to find their place with this as well because like your research with the scientists, they at the Uni of Reading and showing how it could be used in the exams, they're having to take a different approach and think about how that works in an assessment process, but also thinking about upskilling these students for the future.

So when an individual starts at Shearsmiths at the moment, they are receiving firm-wide training on Copilot and encouraged to utilise that as part of our everyday work. It's not currently being used to deliver legal advice, despite us being a law firm, but we are using it in lots of other ways to provide efficiencies and elevate our work. And it is an expectation that we're seeing from clients as well. So clients obviously drive a lot of what we do. 

Robert: So they're going to need those skills when they start. Yeah, absolutely. I think one of the things that you've talked a little bit about is Gen AI literacy. And so if they're going to acquire some of those skills, maybe we might expect them to have some. Yeah, what in the recruitment process? Is it just we're gonna see if they know how to create a prompt or is it a bit more than that? 

Samantha: Yeah, so I see that's where a lot of people are starting to think about it. Can somebody craft or curate a prompt to get out the information they need in a timely manner? That's really important because you don't want to have to keep using your own time to go back in and tweak a prompt and change it and ask another question and get a bit more information. You want to be able to ask the whole thing all upfront and get the answer. And that's what a lot of our training at She's Miss currently is around making sure people are inputting a really good robust prompt to get the answer that you need. So giving context, telling it what your audience is, what's your purpose, what do you actually want to get out, making sure that you are delivering an instruction in the same way that you might to a human assistant and thinking of AI as your human assistant. That's the starting point. But I think a big part is about what do we do with the information that we're then given? How do we then use it? And that I think is a bit of a gap because that's why we're seeing probably and we'll see more of the copy and paste style use of the information it turns out, thinking that that's quite tailored but we're losing our own thoughts or voice or opinions within that. 

So being able to then analyze and then curate that information into the actual way that we need to deliver it next, that's, I see that as being the next skill that we really need to work on and start to assess that skill for the future as well. 

Robert: And potentially we have a problem there in that. As you alluded to earlier, if the universities aren't training for that skill, and the schools aren't able to, then we're back to this challenge again that those with access to money and support get the training on AI skills and those that don't get the access. So we know it's a skill we're going to need in the future maybe we need to assess it in a different way, which is not so much have they got the skill now, but have they got the ability to pick up the skill? Because you know, a big part of my passion is, you know, recruit for roots, not leaves on all of this. And so is that how you're thinking about this for the future? 

Samantha: Yeah, and I'm so pleased you've said that because that's exactly it. There is a gap in that skill set but it's a gap we can fill if the individual has the right growth mindset and innovative thinking as a foundation, then we can train it and build upon it. So absolutely, I think it's about looking for that potential in an individual and growth mindset, that's one sort of phrase we use to cover that. So you mentioned schools as well, which I just focused on unis, but yeah, of course it starts absolutely at schools. I know there's a lot of conversation with higher education at the moment about AI talking a lot with employers. One of our senior leaders has been attending a lot of round tables and discussions on it. And so we have a lot of back and forth between us and then he goes into these meetings and talks to higher education. And so I'm quite confident that there's loads of discussions happening and things are moving in the right way to try and plug that gap. But it's a different mindset from us as a firm and us as talent acquisition leads to make sure that we are looking for not just the skill gap but the potential for where we can build upon it. 

Robert: Yeah. Yes. And I think that's brilliant. And that ultimately is what emerging talent should all be about is thinking about, well, what are the skills we're gonna need for the future? We in many cases, you know, you're talking about quite a few of the people that you'll be asking to apply for roles in the next 12 months may not actually be fully qualified until 2031. So there's a lot of things that are going to change in that time frame and they're going to be able to adapt and learn, which is why that growth mindset is so important. 

And that, I suppose my next area is how when you're thinking about you know there's so much that's changing around all of this so AI is constantly changing there's new versions coming out new capabilities there's going to be things that are going to change but how you use AI within Shoosmiths how do you stay on top of everything that's going on? And how do you have a governance framework as well of other people within the firm you get together to keep reviewing, I suppose, where AI is going to make the best impact and where potentially it could be making a risky impact?

Samantha: At Shoesmiths, we had the rollout of the pilot of Microsoft Copilot, and that went really well, and now we've gone to a full firm model. So we're off the pilot, we're in for the real wealth of using it now. And so we have many, many licenses, full licenses within the business, so lots of people have access to the full version. And then some people who are not as big a users, they just have access to the kind of the chat version that we'll be familiar with using online.

And there's a huge amount of work that's going on across the firm in terms of upskilling individuals to use it, but also trying to keep up with the pace of change as well, and making sure that we're at the forefront of those new technologies that are coming and the different ways that we can use it. So we have a legal innovation team. And that's, for me, as a talent acquisition leader is like incredibly useful. And there's, because the support and the conversations that can go between talent acquisition and legal innovation, they have to be joined up. We have to work together. I can't go off and start introducing some AI thing over here if it doesn't align with the actual direction of the business in terms of that technology. And I think that that's really important for anybody who's trying to introduce it into their own business, just making sure that it aligns in some way with the direction of the business as a whole. 

Robert: Yes. And I suppose by you've got two elements to what you're suggesting there is one, you should be using it all the time because it is changing but If you're a frequent user, you'll get familiar with how some of that change is happening. And then it's about tapping into the way within the organization. And I think it's really interesting that you have a sort of legal innovation unit, because a lot of the time when I speak to organizations, it's the IT team as a service function to the business that control access to AI. 

And, and it comes from a bit more of a sort of guardrail, guardian perspective, which is, you can only use it with internal be careful before you use it. And there's a lot of beware around it as opposed to actually this is part of innovation, this is how we're going to be competitive and so we're going to experiment a bit more and from that experimentation we'll be able to work with other areas within the firm to give them guidance on how they may progress the use of AI, is that so, you know, that feels like it's much more positive within Shoesmith about how you can use AI? 

Samantha: Yeah, my experience of it and the firm's direction with it is 100% positive. And you won't be surprised to hear that I'm a proud AI champion at Shoesmith. And what that means, and there's many of us champions, but that just means that we have a responsibility to really drive forward this initiative within the firm speak positively about it, that's how I feel. So that's great. And to help others, bring along others on the journey, because it is hard, it's a big change for many people to think about doing things in a slightly different way. 

And I always think if you get a new team member, you might be really busy and you get a new team member and you think this is great because they're gonna be able to do loads of the work, stuff that I can't do at the moment. But then you think, oh, I've got to train them first. I've got to spend all this time investing into this individual and then I won't get as much work done.

People feel like that about AI coming as a change is great and it will deliver great things and efficiencies and time saving, cost saving, but we've got to get over that hump at the beginning first. But I think that can be done really quickly with some great positive experiences. So myself and some fellow champions are really driving forward demoing really simple ways of utilising it in a workplace. I'm a big advocate for making sure people, if they're a little bit scared of using it, just use it for something personal. Ask it something not to do with work. Ask it to list out your ingredients in the fridge and ask it to meal plan for you for the week. Or if you're hosting Christmas day, ask, you know, what's the kind of perfect time for Christmas day and factor in a Christmas day walk and the King's speech and whatever else you might have planned and use it for some fun things that aren't.

So you can get to understanding the types of answers it's delivering and I think it's a really basic level of utilizing it and before you know it, you'll be acing those prompts and you'll be acing the information that comes out of it and how you actually utilize it on a daily basis. And so there's a lot of ways as talent acquisition leads, we can begin to use it not just to do with screening and applications and candidates. And we're looking specifically at how we can use it to help our seat rotations of our trainees, so how they move around the business, being able to use some simple algorithms of their preferences and also meeting the regulations of what they need to train in to provide a better and quicker service to both the trainees and the business, and looking at that on a national basis. So we have trainees across 10 locations. Sometimes that's quite a lot to manage in terms of preferences and moves. Yeah, so that's great. I'm really excited about that, how we can actually utilize it better in our own team as well. 

Robert: So that's great advice. And I think that's something that, you know, anybody and you know, you've been the early pioneer on this, but there are lots of people that are still sitting on the fence, not sure what to do. 

And the by far the best way to decide how AI can make a difference is to actually be a user yourself and that's such a good piece of advice. If you're a bit worried about using it at work, then you at least start using it on simple things at home. I hear all sorts of people talking about birthday lists or Christmas as you were saying. I used it actually much to my team's amusement to so there are different ways you just get comfortable with it. 

My final point then is because you've been a pioneer on this, do you see the rest of the legal industry charging in behind you at the moment or is it still something that a lot of people are on the fence and if they are on the fence still on this, what piece of advice would you give them? 

Samantha: Well, I think we certainly can't rest on our laurels. So that's why we're keeping moving forwards. We're now thinking about that skills piece and the assessment piece and how we might begin to upskill individuals and assess them. Because we can see some other law firms are keeping pace too and are moving forwards with it, which is great. That's the direction of the industry working together for the benefit of all of those newcomers, those junior lawyers that are joining the profession.

And I just think it's a really exciting time. There's still a huge number of people who are on the fence. And I've been speaking at a couple of events and I'm seeing loads of people nodding along. They're in agreement. They get the foundations of it. And I think where a lot of people are struggling is to overcome the internal hurdles of the risk, the ethical piece, bringing others on board with them. So where businesses are not as forward thinking in their own approach to using AI in the workplace, that's I think where we're seeing a number of businesses struggling to push that forwards. But I think we're really lucky in early careers. We're thought of as creative, innovative, forward movers. And so there's the space to get out there. And there's fantastic research to back it up. It's really clear and concise the research. You can't argue against it. And so my tip for anybody who really would like to drive this forward in their own early careers teams and businesses is to delve in and find some of those stats, pull them out, understand how they impact you as a business and how it all aligns, and let that be your starting point. 

Robert: Fantastic advice. Sam, as always, it's been great chatting to you. I know a lot of people would have taken some really great insights and encouragement from what you've shared with us today. So thank you very much for being on the podcast. 

Samantha: Pleasure, thank you.