The two objections that are really one
"We don't have time for a transformation project" and "we can't risk client data" sound like separate objections. They're the same one: the fear that AI means a big, invasive change — consultants everywhere, systems migrated, confidential files uploaded to who-knows-where, partners dragged into workshops for a quarter. If that were the offer, the objections would be right.
What one workflow looks like instead
The firm's bottleneck was first-draft production — advice letters and standard documents built from the firm's own precedents. Senior people were spending six-plus hours a week on work that was 80% pattern and 20% judgement. The fix touched one workflow: the drafting engine runs inside the firm's own environment against the firm's own precedent bank. Client matter files never leave the building. There was nothing to migrate, nobody to re-train for weeks, and no moment where the firm was "mid-transformation".
Total partner time consumed by the engagement: a scoping conversation, two review sessions, and a sign-off. The six weekly hours came back within the first month — which is the arithmetic that matters: the workflow repaid the time it cost before the invoice was due.
The point
"No time" is a valid objection to a program. It's not a valid objection to recovering time — that's the one investment a time-poor firm can't afford to skip. And "client data risk" is a design requirement, not a blocker: workflows can be built so confidential material never leaves your environment. If a vendor can't build it that way, the answer isn't "no AI" — it's a better-governed build.