Why Law Firms Are Asking Paralegals About AI in Interviews (And How to Answer)

The paralegal interview question about artificial intelligence often lands with a thud because it feels disconnected from day-to-day legal work. When a firm asks how AI would be used to “get the best outcome for a client,” many paralegals, legal assistants, and other legal support professionals hear a technical test they were never trained for. That discomfort is understandable, particularly for those whose experience has been shaped in smaller firms where AI tools have not yet entered the workflow in any formal way.

What makes the question unsettling is not a lack of competence, but a mismatch between how legal work has traditionally been done and how firms are now being pressured to evolve. The legal industry has a long-standing reputation for being one of the last professional sectors to adopt new technology, and that reputation is well earned. Risk aversion, ethical obligations, malpractice exposure, and billing structures that reward time rather than efficiency have historically slowed adoption. Even now-common tools such as electronic filing, cloud-based document management, and e-signatures faced years of resistance before becoming standard.

AI is following that same pattern, but with higher stakes. Unlike earlier tools that primarily changed where documents lived or how they were transmitted, AI directly interacts with language, judgment, and analysis. That proximity to core legal work is exactly why firms are cautious and why interview questions about AI are rarely about enthusiasm or technical fluency. They are about control.

When firms raise AI in interviews, they are not asking whether a paralegal can name platforms or write clever prompts. They are trying to determine whether the candidate understands the boundary between assistance and delegation. In other words, does this person know how to use tools without surrendering responsibility?

That distinction has become increasingly important as courts and regulatory bodies remind attorneys that accountability never transfers to technology. Recent sanctions for AI-generated filings containing fabricated citations have reinforced a simple rule: regardless of how a draft is produced, a human remains responsible for its accuracy and compliance. This reality has shaped how firms are approaching AI internally.

As a result, AI adoption in law firms has been deliberately narrow. Most experimentation has focused on low-risk, support-oriented tasks rather than substantive legal analysis. Summarizing deposition transcripts, extracting key dates from records, organizing discovery, drafting first-pass internal communications, and generating issue lists are common use cases. These applications emphasize efficiency while preserving the need for human verification.

This is where paralegals, legal assistants, and other legal support professionals become central to the conversation. They have always served as the final quality-control layer between raw drafts and formal filings, and AI does not change that role. It simply introduces another source of draft material that must be reviewed with the same care. The skills involved checking citations, confirming deadlines, ensuring formatting compliance, protecting privilege, and understanding context are not new. They are foundational.

From my previous role as a Legal Coordinator, this work moved from theory into practice. Supporting the implementation of a contract review AI system required training it on company-specific legal terms and teaching it which provisions mattered most to the business. The goal was not automation of legal judgment, but acceleration of review. When the legal team received contracts exceeding one hundred pages, attorneys needed immediate visibility into where relevant clauses appeared before beginning redlines and negotiation.

That kind of efficiency only works when paralegals, legal assistants, and other legal support professionals define the structure the technology operates within. Determining which clauses should be flagged, which risks required escalation, and which sections routinely drove negotiation depended on institutional knowledge built through prior deals and attorney preferences. By surfacing material terms early, the review process became more focused, negotiation cycles shortened, and agreements closed faster. The value came not from replacing review, but from organizing information so legal judgment could be applied where it mattered most.

For professionals who have never used AI, none of this signals unpreparedness. Most firms do not expect candidates to arrive with hands-on experience in proprietary systems or enterprise AI tools. What they do expect is sound judgment. Awareness of confidentiality boundaries, an instinct to verify outputs against the record, and an understanding of approved versus consumer-grade tools matter far more than platform familiarity.

Confidentiality has become one of the most important fault lines in AI adoption. Legal departments increasingly differentiate between consumer tools and enterprise systems governed by contracts, access controls, and data retention policies. Firms want paralegals and legal assistants who understand that distinction intuitively and who recognize that not every efficiency gain is worth the associated risk.

At the same time, it would be unrealistic to ignore the pressures firms face. Clients are scrutinizing bills and pushing back on purely administrative time, particularly in insurance defense and corporate work. Leadership teams are exploring AI as one possible lever to meet those expectations without sacrificing quality. That does not mean AI is mandatory or universally embraced, but it does mean the conversation is no longer hypothetical.

This is why interview questions about AI often feel vague. They are proxies for a larger concern: can this person operate responsibly in a changing environment? A paralegal who responds by naming safeguards, review processes, and appropriate use cases signals readiness. Framing AI as a way to support consistency and reduce administrative burden—while emphasizing human oversight demonstrates alignment with both innovation and professional standards.

Skepticism about AI is not unprofessional. Many experienced paralegals and legal assistants correctly observe that poorly supervised AI can create more work through errors, hallucinations, and cleanup. In small practices with established templates and predictable workflows, AI may add little value. Acknowledging that reality strengthens credibility rather than weakening it.

What does carry risk, however, is refusing to engage with the concept at all. In larger firms and corporate legal departments, leadership is increasingly evaluating AI as part of broader operational planning, even if adoption remains cautious. In those environments, credibility often depends on being able to articulate informed restraint rather than categorical opposition.

The professionals navigating this shift most effectively position themselves as translators. They bridge leadership curiosity and operational reality by identifying where AI fits, where it does not, and what safeguards must exist before it touches client work. Advocating for written policies, standardized review checklists, and training that emphasizes verification over speed are extensions of the role paralegals and legal assistants have always played.

From an interview perspective, this is the substance candidates should focus on. A strong answer does not claim mastery of tools but demonstrates an understanding of consequences. Efficiency gains mean little if they introduce risk, and technology only adds value when governed by people who understand how legal work fails when assumptions go unchecked.

The legal profession has absorbed technological change many times before. When email replaced paper correspondence, legal secretaries did not become obsolete; their work became more complex. When electronic filing replaced in-person court submissions, paralegals did not disappear; they became even more central to compliance and deadline management. AI follows the same pattern. It changes how work is produced, not who is responsible for it.

For those concerned about job security, the evidence points toward opportunity rather than displacement. Roles grounded in judgment, coordination, and consequence awareness increase in value as routine tasks become automated. The professionals who understand how mistakes happen (and how to prevent them) remain indispensable.

The interview question about AI, then, is not a trap. It is an invitation to demonstrate professional maturity in a moment of uncertainty. Answering it well requires clarity about responsibility, boundaries, and the realities of legal practice, not technical bravado.

In a profession that adapts slowly but deliberately, paralegals, legal assistants, and other legal support professionals continue to serve as the stabilizing force that makes progress possible without inviting chaos. AI does not diminish that role; it makes it more visible.

AI is already changing what law firms expect from paralegals and legal assistants, but expectations are shifting faster than formal training. Inside the Simply Thrives program, paralegals, legal assistants, and other legal support professionals gain practical guidance on navigating changes like AI adoption while maintaining accuracy, confidentiality, and professional credibility. Monthly workshops address real operational topics including responsible AI use in legal workflows through a lens grounded in judgment, risk awareness, and career sustainability.

If you want support that respects the realities of legal work and helps you stay current without compromising professional standards, Simply Thrives offers structured learning and community designed specifically for paralegals and legal assistants.

About the Author

Dinah Williams is the Founder and Master Coach of Simply Thrives, a coaching and professional development practice for paralegals, legal assistants, and other legal support professionals. Drawing from nearly a decade of experience in legal support roles along with a background in early childhood education, project management, and coaching she helps clients navigate burnout, career transitions, and sustainable success without sacrificing their lives outside of work. Her work centers on creating healthier, more intentional career paths in high-pressure legal environments.