Key takeaways:

• • • Corporate legal AI strategies should start with business goals, not just efficiency — While many corporate law departments first adopt AI for internally-focused use cases, the bigger opportunity is to align AI with broader business priorities such as revenue growth, risk reduction, and improved operational performance.

    • GCs should measure AI success by business impact — Metrics such as time saved and tool usage help, but stronger AI metrics connect legal work to business results. In contract review, for example, success may be reflected in improved win rates, reduced revenue leakage, faster deal completion, or dollars of risk avoided.

    • A strong legal AI strategy should produce multiple forms of business value at once — The most effective approaches do not focus on a single benefit such as cost savings. Rather, they aim to improve service delivery, strengthen operations, support growth, and reduce risk across the business.

Over the past several years, corporate law departments have begun to rapidly adopt AI tools, often spurred on by company-wide AI initiatives. In fact, in just the past year alone, department-wide AI adoption has risen to nearly half (47%) of all departments, according to respondents surveyed for Thomson Reuters Institute (TRI) research.

However, it’s not enough to simply adopt technology. For AI to truly make an impact, it needs to be integrated strategically. In taking this strategic approach, however, GCs and other legal department leaders are still in the early stages.

According to findings from TRI’s 2026 State of the Corporate Law Department Report, more GCs are focused on technology than ever before. When asked their top strategic priorities over the next year, 28% answered that technology was a top priority, double the portion that prioritized technology just one year ago. And out of those mentions of technology, a vast majority specifically referenced AI as a primary area of focus.

Historically, many legal departments have thought about AI from an internal efficiency standpoint, leveraging it to perform their work quicker and cheaper. Increasingly, however, C-Suites are looking to their legal departments to provide more effective business counsel and connect legal analysis to business outcomes — and, not surprisingly, they’re expecting AI to play a role in that shift.

So how can GCs effectively make AI a priority not only for the legal department but also for the entire business? It starts with broadening the potential impact of AI processes.

From unlocking to deploying capacity

Still less than four years since the public release of generative AI (GenAI) tools through ChatGPT, many corporate legal departments are still in the early days of rolling out the technology. As a result, most GenAI use cases still tend to focus on low-hanging fruit such as document summarization and review, contract drafting and review, research, and more.

This is understandable from an individual use case standpoint. The problem is, when these use cases are translated to the leadership level for overall strategic guidance, many GCs remain focused on how to maximize the gains from that low-hanging fruit. According to TRI research, less than 20% of corporate law departments measure return-on-investment from AI at all, meaning many departments are using AI tools without any sort of guiding measurement around what success should look like. And even among those departments that are measuring AI success, most of the metrics they use center around internal department usage or department cost savings from the tool.

Those measurements are more helpful than no tracking at all, to be sure. They focus on how AI is unlocking capacity for the legal department and look for ways that attorneys can perform their work more efficiently than before. Indeed, the majority of legal departments that have invested in AI tools are currently at this point.

However, there is an additional step that legal departments need to take in order to full take advantage of the strategic value of AI. And that is connecting AI’s use to that of larger business goals by deploying the capacity it has unlocked. This requires thinking about AI less in terms of how it will impact the legal department, and more in terms of how it will impact those that the legal department serves.

For example, take a common AI use case such as contract review. Currently, the most common measurement around contract review technology is speed, such as how quickly the legal department can help a contract go from start to signature. Maximizing that value can improve the efficiency of the department, to be sure. But C-Suite partners aren’t necessarily looking for an efficient department as the end goal — they’re looking for business success.

As a result, some forward-thinking GCs are looking to connect AI usage directly with business goals or revenue. For contract review, that could mean demonstrating the impact on overall contract win rate, or whether close rates increased through use of AI. Or it could mean more successful revenue leakage protection; and it could even mean risk avoidance, measured in dollars of risk avoided. All of these can demonstrate value and be connected to the rest of the business.

Further, all of this requires close collaboration with other business units, both in terms of sharing metrics as well as understanding what success throughout the organization should mean to all parties. That said, GCs have told TRI for countless years that breaking out of a silo is a top priority for the legal department. In this case, AI implementation should be no different.

Wide areas of impact

As it currently stands, corporate law departments are seeing the most impact from AI in areas of efficiency and time saved. More than three-quarters of GCs who have talked with TRI say that AI is either currently benefiting the department’s efficiency and productivity, or that they’re expecting those benefits to occur within the next 12 months.

Connecting AI outcomes with business imperatives provides more areas of improvement, however. In this year’s State of Corporate Law Department Report and elsewhere, TRI breaks down the law department’s role into four key functions that we call the four spinning plates:

1. 1. 1. Provide effective legal services and operational excellence
      2. Offer efficient legal value within budget
      3. Enable business and strategic growth, and
      4. Protect the business’s assets and competitive advantage.

AI’s impact on efficient legal value is clear; but GCs are beginning to see that it can actually impact all four of those plates.

Those GCs looking to adopt AI as a strategic goal should be aware that said strategy should encompass more than simply internal efficiency. Not all of these benefits will be applicable to all departments, but all departments should be considering more than just one of these areas. An effective AI strategy should have multiple benefits in mind — and as such, it should take into account multiple business factors when measuring the success of the department’s AI strategy.

Entering into an AI strategy is a laudable goal for today’s GCs, but also not a light undertaking. When thinking about how AI will impact the department, leaders should take the next step beyond deploying capacity into unlocking capacity, helping attorneys not only work more efficiently but also make a bigger impact on the business at large.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s

Key takeaways:

• • • Your post-OBBBA forecasts should look different — If the tax department doesn’t own the OBBBA model, someone else will own the OBBBA story.

• • • Rely on your department’s inner strengths — It’s governance and analysis — not tools — that get you into the strategy room.

    • Factor in the conflict in the Middle East — The Iran war risk belongs in your tax model, not just in your CFO’s macro deck.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), signed into law in July 2025, enacted large business tax cuts, most notably by providing permanent full expensing of many forms of investment. Under the previous major corporate tax legislation, 2017’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), bonus depreciation was scheduled for gradual phase-out following 2023. The OBBBA restored that expensing 100% retroactively for assets acquired from mid-January 2025 onwards.

The after-tax cost of new machinery, fleets, and equipment has effectively fallen by around 21%, designed to encourage immediate capital outlays by allowing businesses to write off these expenses in the year they are incurred rather than amortizing them over five years.

For corporate tax departments, that’s not a disclosure footnote — that’s your capital plan.

Capital-intensive corporations will see tax burdens reduced through permanent rate extensions, depreciation adjustments, and expansion of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap — but only if your models are built to capture the timing and location of investment, the mix of debt compared to equity, and where your organization books its next dollar of income.

Not surprisingly, most corporate tax departments aren’t there yet. They’re still recalculating last year, plus a few adjustments. That’s glorified compliance, not modeling.

A standout tax department doesn’t ask, What’s the OBBBA impact? Rather, it asks, Which version of OBBBA do we choose for this business? — and it has the models to back it up.

From spreadsheet heroics to controlled modeling

For many organizations, tax modeling still means creating a massive spreadsheet that only one director truly understands. The spreadsheet gets pulled out for budget season, rebuilt under pressure, and quietly retired until next year. That’s a single point of failure, not a process.

And after OBBBA, continuing that practice is dangerous. One wrong assumption on expensing or interest limitation can move cash tax by millions of dollars and blindside the Finance Department.

Here’s what disciplined modeling looks like in practice:

• • • Create a unified model — Build one integrated model that the whole team can use or accept that your department is choosing to fly blind.
    • Use the same assumptions — Standardize the levers that matter most (such as capex timing, financing mix, jurisdiction, and incentives) and make sure every scenario runs off the same assumptions.
    • Conduct modeling reviews — Treat major OBBBA-driven decisions (such as large capex, funding shifts, supply-chain redesign) as tax deals that must go through a modeling review before they’re greenlit.
    • Document your assumptions explicitly — Under permanent full expensing, the difference between a well-supported assumption and a poorly documented one isn’t just an audit risk, rather it’s a credibility problem with your CFO.

It’s also important to remember that in a post-OBBBA world, this level of disciplined modeling is not technology transformation — it’s basic survival.

Governance: Where leaders quietly win or loudly fail

The differentiator isn’t which corporate tax department has the fanciest tool — it’s which one has the cleanest governance. And the data is unambiguous: More than half (55%) of tax departments are still in the reactive phase of their technological development, stuck with five capex models circulating with five discount rates and the tax team arriving late to the planning meeting.

Those tax departments that are breaking out of that pattern share one trait: They put someone formally in charge. In the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recent 2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report, a large portion (88%) of survey respondents said their company had appointed a person to lead the tax department’s technology strategy. That number jumped a whopping 37 percentage points, from 51%, from the previous year’s survey. That single structural move separates those departments with a governance model from those that simply hold a governance conversation every budget cycle and forget about it.

Clearly, this type of ownership drives results. Two-thirds of those surveyed agreed that their company’s investment in technology has enabled a shift from routine, reactive work to more strategic, proactive, higher-value work.

Under OBBBA, the kind of governance isn’t housekeeping. It’s how you get invited into strategy discussions instead of having to clean up after things go awry.

Why your OBBBA win may not feel like a win

On paper, the tax changes embedded in the OBBBA look generous. In practice, your effective tax benefit is colliding with something you don’t control.

When the war on Iran began, all shipping through the Strait of Hormuz was effectively halted, removing roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and gas supply from the market. Fuel prices throughout the world spiked and are likely to remain elevated as long as conflict persists.

With oil prices hovering around $100 a barrel, there are will wipe out the benefits of higher tax refunds this year for most Americans. If those benefits, arising from Trump’s 2025 tax cuts, are erased for the average American, only the top 30% of taxpayers will still seeing a net gain.

For corporate planning purposes, the parallel dynamic is real: The topline OBBBA benefit is being eroded by higher fuel, freight, and financing costs across the business and its supply chain.

Inflationary pressures are being driven by higher energy prices tied to the Iran war, and the conflict’s impact on a wide range of goods and services is likely to last for months — with experts saying even a ceasefire is unlikely to immediately ease global energy shortages.

A serious corporate tax department doesn’t handwave these concerns away. It takes three actions:

1. 1. 1. Run a war-extended scenario — The scenario should show exactly how sustained higher energy costs and borrowing rates change the payoff from accelerated expensing and leverage — with specific numbers, not just directional commentary.
      2. Share your forecasts internally — Put your monthly or quarterly cash-tax forecasts on the table for Finance to see, so that it can manage liquidity rather than hope the annual plan holds.
      3. Force the hard conversation — Ask the tough question: At today’s rates and fuel costs, the after-tax return on this project is X. Are we still in? That question should come from the tax team now, not from the finance team six months later.

Clearly, the daily fluctuations in oil prices matter less than monthly and quarterly averages — and volatility will likely remain elevated given the absence of a clear timeline for the end of the war. That’s exactly the kind of sustained uncertainty that belongs front and center in your scenario set, not in a footnote.

The bottom line

The OBBBA gives corporate tax departments a genuine opportunity to move from being simply a compliance function to becoming more of a strategic advisor. Permanent full expensing, richer cost recovery, and more flexible interest rules can create real levers to add value, but only for those organizations that model them rigorously, govern them cleanly, and stress-test them against the macro environment their business actually faces today.

Indeed, the Iran war is a live test of that readiness. The corporate tax departments that show up with modeled scenarios, cash-tax forecasts, and a clear point of view on after-tax returns will earn a seat at the strategy table. The ones that show up with caveats will be asked to leave it.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recent 2026 Corporate Tax Department Technology Report here

Key takeaways:

• • • The FIFA World Cup is a catalyst, not the root cause — Mexico City’s housing affordability crisis predates the coming tournament. Rental prices have been rising uncontrollably for years, displacing thousands of families annually. The World Cup will accelerate and amplify an already existing problem.

    • The 2024 rental reform is a step in the right direction, but it has significant limitations — Capping rent increases at the annual inflation rate was a necessary measure, but its impact has been limited by grey areas in the law.

    • The real battle is formalization — No housing regulation can be fully effective if a large portion of the market operates outside of it. Until authorities find ways to make formal rental agreements genuinely attractive and accessible for both landlords and tenants.

On the eve of the 23^rd playing of the FIFA World Cup, Mexico stands as one of three host countries for one of the most significant sporting events in the world. It will feature matches in Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Monterrey, and it will be co-hosted alongside the United States and Canada.

Organizing such an event carries notable financial benefits, including a surge in tourism, job creation, and substantial foreign investment — all of which generate a local economic spillover that strengthens the national marketplace. At the same time, Mexico’s major capitals— especially its World Cup host cities — have been undergoing a level of urban transformation that has significantly altered the daily lives of its residents. Chief among these changes is the sharp rise in rental costs, which has been pushing residents toward the cities’ outskirts. According to government figures, are displaced each year due to the uncontrolled increase in housing prices in Mexico City alone.

Mexican authorities had to get to work

Legal changes to real estate regulation in Mexico City are not isolated, and what is implemented in the capital often sets a precedent for the rest of the country. Time and again, Mexico City has served as a laboratory for new policies, and when these are proven effective, they become models for nationwide reform.

According to government figures, more than 20,000 households are displaced each year due to the uncontrolled increase in housing prices in Mexico City alone.

That said, in August 2024 — after the city’s head of government noted that rentals costs in none of the boroughs of Mexico City fall below the city’s minimum wage, and that 9 out of 13 boroughs average rents that exceeded twice the minimum wage — the Official Gazette of Mexico City published a decree amending Articles 2448-D and 2448-F of the Civil Code for the Federal District, imposing limits on rent increases for residential properties. Previously, the monthly rent increase could not exceed 10% of the agreed-upon rent. That paragraph was amended to establish that rent increases shall never exceed the inflation rate reported by the Bank of Mexico for the previous year.

It is worth noting that the prior 10% cap was nearly three times the general annual inflation rate calculated by the Bank of Mexico in 2025, which stood at 3.69%.

More than a year after these reforms took effect, however, 2025 closed with an average increase in rental prices of . With the FIFA World Cup approaching, prices are expected to continue rising uncontrollably due to the influx of tourists drawn by the event. This concern is well-founded: Ahead of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, empowered landlords to raise rents by more than 40%.

Mexico City’s rental reform also introduced additional measures. For example, a digital registry for lease agreements was established, to be immediately authorized and managed by the Government of Mexico City. Landlords now are required to register lease agreements within 30 days of their execution. Furthermore, landlords are prohibited from refusing to rent to tenants on the grounds that they have children or pets.

The registration requirement carries real consequences: Should a landlord fail to register a contract within the stipulated period, their ability to invoke legal protection mechanisms in the event of a dispute with a tenant becomes significantly more complicated.

Regardless of the efforts, it’s not all smooth sailing

That said, the reform contains certain grey areas that limit its scope. For instance, it only applies under specific conditions — most notably when a lease has been in place for three years or more. A landlord can effectively circumvent the cap by choosing not to renew an existing contract and instead requiring the tenant to sign a new one at a higher price.

A separate but equally significant obstacle to the reform’s effectiveness is the rapid growth of short-term rental platforms. In recent years, the proliferation of temporary accommodation services has steadily reduced the supply of traditional long-term rentals, as more properties are listed on platforms such as Airbnb, Vrbo, or others. Indeed, every 48 hours, three housing units in Mexico City are . And from a national perspective, the Tourism Gross Product reached approximately US $151.5 billion, equivalent to 8.7% of Mexico’s GDP.

---

Every 48 hours, three housing units in Mexico City are converted into Airbnb listings.

This problem is further compounded by the scale of informal rental arrangements. According to the National Housing Survey conducted by Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), there are more than 200,000 informal rental agreements in Mexico City — none of which involve formal contracts.

Forcing the real estate market into formalization

This brings us to the central challenge facing city authorities with regard to housing: The need to incentivize the formalization of the real estate market. This is already complicated by the country’s low tax culture and the requirement for landlords to enter a specific tax regime that raises their tax burden. Additionally, rental contracts are not only essential for protecting tenants’ rights, but they also are equally important for landlords — because without a legally binding agreement, there is no guarantee that the terms of any arrangement will be honored.

Paradoxically, the recent reform may actually push the informal market further underground. By requiring landlords to formally declare their rental income, the regulation inevitably creates a sense of heightened oversight — one that informal landlords may seek to evade rather than comply with.

To the authorities of Mexico City, the message is clear — punitive measures alone will not bring the informal market into the fold. Tax benefits for landlords who register their contracts, streamlined and accessible digital registration processes, and legal protections that make formal agreements genuinely advantageous for both parties could go a long way toward building trust in the system.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup will come and go, of course, but the people of Mexico City will remain. They deserve a housing market that works for them — not one that treats their homes as a commodity to be priced beyond their reach every time the world turns its attention to their city.

You can find out more about the

Key highlights:

• • • Three emerging business models, one unresolved tensionĚý— AI is compressing time, which directly threatens the logic of billing by the hour, but the smartest law firms are not waiting for a winner to emerge before building their strategic foundation.

    • Technology strategy and talent strategy are the same conversation — The talent model must be designed in tandem with the business model, even amid uncertainty, because many of the structural conditions of legal work are changing all at once.

    • The next great lawyer will lead with human skills, not tool proficiencyĚý— Forward-thinking firms are doubling down on their lawyers’ curiosity, judgment, client skills, and relationship-building as these capabilities are those that AI cannot replicate.

Every law firm is asking how AI will change the way legal work gets done; but , Chief Legal Operations Officer at , is asking a more consequential question: How will AI change the way legal work getsĚýpaid for?

Planning around 3 law firm business models in the AI era

AI is making law firms more efficient, of course, but efficiency alone does not answer the harder question of how to capture value and how AI-enabled legal services get priced. Olson Bluvshtein sees three paths emerging in law firms:

1. 1. 1. Billable-hour (still) — The first is the path of least resistance. Firms stay anchored to the billable hour, raise rates, and use AI to move faster and handle more volume, with the idea that more volume will make up the revenue losses of faster work. With this model, however, the client-firm incentive misalignment remains intact, and the fundamental tension between billing for time and AI compressing that time never gets resolved.
      2. Value-based pricing — The fixed fee pathway also is likely to gain further traction, as it’s one that many AI-native law firms are pursuing. In this model, value-based pricing creates a natural meeting point between firm and client interests because when incentives align, everyone wins, Olson Bluvshtein explains.
      3. Frontier models rule — The third scenario is more speculative but worth watching. As foundational models improve, the need for expensive legal-specific tools may diminish. “I could see a scenario in the future in which we don’t necessarily need all the legal-specific tools that are out there,” she says. Even though technology costs historically come down, cheaper tools do not make the business model question disappear, Olson Bluvshtein notes.

Candidly, Olson Bluvshtein admits that “the truth is probably somewhere in the middle,” and the firms best positioned for any of these futures are the ones building the strategic and operational foundation now rather than waiting for the answer to become obvious.

Indeed, the most thoughtfully designed business model will fall short without the right talent foundation to support it. “Technology strategy and people strategy are not separate conversations,” Olson Bluvshtein says, adding that they are key parts of the same strategy.

Legal innovation consultant reinforces this point in , noting that many aspects of the structural foundation under which the legal profession has operated are changing all at once. This means that addressing the technology strategy separately from the human side, slice by slice, does not make sense.

Boyko says she encourages law firms to take a step back and approach the problem by identifying what the firm will need first in the future and then plan the talent and tech part for that reality.

Aligning the talent model to the future business model

Not surprisingly, a key challenge for law firms right now is that the future is uncertain. Therefore, it is difficult to design a talent model for an uncertain future and an unknown business model. At the same time, there are some known facts, but the unknown aspect is when these certainties will occur.

More specifically, what is known is that there is mounting pressure on the three possible law firm business models because AI is automating the tasks of past junior associates, clients do not want to pay for tasks completed by junior associates, and clients are bringing more legal work in-house, often until the time when the almost final deliverable is handed over to outside counsel for final review.

To explore the right talent model, one experiment that Boyko suggests is to expand the junior associate experience to include rotations through back-office functions, such as knowledge management, professional development, and technology functions.

At law firm Fredrikson & Byron, Olson Bluvshtein says its associate development program is evolving to prepare for the uncertain future based on three current tactics:

• • • Building AI fluency — This is a near-term imperative that will soon become table stakes. The goal is to move past basic adoption into something more sophisticated and durable. To enable this, the litigation and M&A practices at Fredrikson are actively working with a variety of tools to test prompts that they can then share more broadly with other teams, while also identifying how AI policy guidance will evolve.
    • Accelerating the development of legal judgment — Shortening the learning curve for developing legal judgment, which includes the ability to supervise and efficiently validate AI-produced work, is the second essential part of the firm’s talent development framework. Olson Bluvshtein is candid about where things stand. “It has not fully happened yet,” she says. “But building the training infrastructure to operationalize this is a stated goal for the year ahead, including formalized curriculum around effectively and efficiently supervising AI output.”
    • Being hyper-focused on the development and recruiting of human skills — Doubling down on the human skills — including client development, negotiation, relationship-building, and sound judgment — that technology cannot replicate are the capabilities that will define the next generation of great lawyers, regardless of which law firm business model ultimately prevails.

This same philosophy is shaping how Fredrikson recruits. Rather than screening candidates for a checklist of AI tools, the firm is prioritizing curiosity, openness, and the ability to demonstrate human skills. Indeed, the firm is looking for lawyers “who are really good at those human skills” and who bring the kind of judgment and adaptability that compounds over time, explains Olson Bluvshtein.

Boyko underscores a similar approach to skills. “Right now, the skills needed to be a good lawyer are no longer those rote skills that AI can automate,” she explains. “Instead, they are the people skills, the operational skills, and the client skills.”

Of course, moving from broad experimentation to disciplined, firm-wide maturity takes time, and the gap between early movers and late adopters is already widening. Those firms that will define the next era of legal services already are asking how AI changes the way it delivers value and what skills its lawyers will most need — and not just looking for the next tool to buy.

You can learn more about the challenges facing legal talent here

Key insights:

• • • Big sporting events create perfect cover for sex trafficking — The World Cup’s massive crowds, temporary workers, and stretched local infrastructure make it easier for traffickers to blend in and exploit vulnerable people while staying largely out of sight.

    • Money trails and online ads are where traffickers slip up — Trafficking often leaves patterns, such as payments tied to commercial sex ads, round‑dollar peer‑to‑peer transactions, and repeat phone numbers or language across online ads. Banks and investigators can spot these red flags, if they know what to look for.

    • Early, cross‑sector collaboration is what actually makes a difference — The strongest prevention efforts happen before kickoff, when law enforcement, financial institutions, and nonprofits share intelligence, use formal information‑sharing tools, and build trusted local networks to respond quickly and protect victims.

As millions of soccer fans descend upon stadiums across North America for the 2026 FIFA World Cup in June and July, perpetrators of human rights crimes also are getting ready to operate in the shadows of host cities. Criminal networks are preparing to exploit the crowds, traffic, and chaos during the event by trafficking vulnerable individuals for commercial sex.

Human traffickers and organized crime groups often exploit major sporting events as opportunities to make quick money because the massive influx of visitors, temporary workers, and strained infrastructure creates perfect conditions for traffickers to operate while being largely undetected. At the same time, the stakeholders involved in countering this illegal activity — including law enforcement, civil society organizations, and financial institutions — stand ready to detect it, disrupt it, and protect vulnerable individuals who are exploited by criminal actors.

Indeed, close coordination and collaboration among these entities in advance of the games is key. To that end, the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (ACAMS) and ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę are collaborating on a virtual and live event series to support these planning counter-trafficking efforts among stakeholders in several local cities this Spring.

Why major sporting events attract human trafficking activity

Not surprisingly, large crowds draw business opportunities whether they are legitimate or illicit. Collaboration between public and private entities underscore spikes in human trafficking activity. For example, during a recent large sporting event in 2025, ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę Special Services partnered with federal law enforcement and other partners to identify nine adult encounters & services offered, which led to the recovery of two juveniles from sex trafficking and three state arrests

Common industries that involve the exploitation of vulnerable individuals include hospitality, construction, illicit massage businesses, escort services, and adult content production. The chaos of events and large influx of people mask the reality that exploitation is happening and makes detection significantly more challenging during these high-traffic periods.

Human traffickers and organized crime groups often exploit major sporting events as opportunities to make quick money because the massive influx of visitors, temporary workers, and strained infrastructure creates perfect conditions for traffickers to operate while being largely undetected.

Critically, understanding human trafficking as a business model depends on the recruitment of vulnerable people and access to money flows. These aspects of the business are also where detection can occur. Financial institutions and money service businesses can identify suspicious transactions related to human trafficking by understanding and recognizing specific transactional patterns, including payments to commercial sex advertisement websites, round-dollar peer-to-peer transactions, and merchant services linked to illicit massage businesses.

This online footprint left by traffickers proves invaluable for detection. Investigators track advertisements across adult services websites, identifying criminal networks through repeated phone numbers, distinctive emojis, and similar wording that may appear across multiple cities. However, smaller-scale operations present significant challenges as well. When the trafficker is an intimate partner or family member with limited transaction volumes, detection becomes exponentially more difficult without external intelligence.

Collaboration is key for prevention and detection

The most critical element for combating human trafficking at major sporting events is collaboration among anti-trafficking experts and employers of these professionals. Effective prevention requires building strong partnerships before these major events occur. Specific actions that can be taken include:

Establishing multi-sector task forces — The most successful anti-trafficking efforts involve joint task forces that combine federal, state, and local law enforcement with trusted private sector partners and supportive nonprofits or non-government organizations (NGOs) that offer victim services. This toolkit for large scale public events and other anti-trafficking toolkits are excellent resources for local host cities to use to execute these partnerships. These collaborative mechanisms allow different entities to share information in a timely manner.

Leveraging information sharing mechanisms — Financial institutions can use Section 314(b) authority for peer-to-peer information sharing between banks. This allows financial institutions to piece together fragments of suspicious activity that individually might seem insignificant but collectively reveal trafficking networks. Large federal agencies are consumed by multiple priorities and benefit from information sharing through Section 314(a) and assistance from financial sector partners during special operations to act as a force multiplier. Law enforcement also can benefit from detailed Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) that contain specific dollar amounts, clear timelines, behavioral observations, and explicit keywords like human trafficking.

Preparing host cities by building networks and outreach in advance — Some World Cup host cities have already established human rights plans with robust collaborative systems within local task forces, government awareness campaigns, QR codes that link to support services, and multidisciplinary safety plans.

In addition, anti-trafficking professionals across all sectors are accessible and willing to help. Resources include national hotlines, such as the , referral directories on website, and the for cases involving minors. The most important step is simply reaching out to establish connections before crises occur.

Preparing for a safer event

The 2026 World Cup presents a pivotal moment to strengthen collaborative efforts against human trafficking across North America’s host cities. By establishing robust information-sharing networks between financial institutions, law enforcement, NGOs, and host communities before the tournament begins, stakeholders can transform heightened awareness into meaningful action that protects vulnerable individuals.

While traffickers will undoubtedly attempt to exploit the inevitable chaos surrounding a major event like the World Cup, a coordinated, multi-sector response grounded in shared intelligence, victim-centered approaches, and proactive preparation can disrupt their operations and ensure that the world’s celebration of soccer doesn’t come at the cost of human dignity and freedom.

You can find out more aboutĚýhow organizations are trying to fight against human rights crimes here

Key insights:

• • • Well-being is a professional necessity — Judges experience decision fatigue, emotional stress, and personal biases that can affect their rulings, making mental and physical well-being a judicial duty.

    • Community engagement builds better judgment — Staying connected to the communities they serve helps judges develop empathy, recognize bias, and deliver fairer decisions.

    • Diverse experience strengthens the judiciary — Varied backgrounds and ongoing education in areas like restorative justice make courts more responsive, inclusive, and publicly trusted.

Judges play a unique and essential role in society. They are tasked with interpreting the law, resolving disputes, and upholding justice — often under intense scrutiny and pressure. Their decisions shape lives, influence public policy, and reinforce the rule of law.

Indeed, judicial rulings may be the most visible part of the job, but they are not the only measure of a judge’s effectiveness — or of the judiciary’s overall health.

To truly understand and support a robust legal system, it is vital to look beyond the courtroom and examine the broader context in which judges operate. A judiciary that is fair, empathetic, and resilient depends not only on legal expertise, but also on balance, self-awareness, and active engagement with the communities it serves.

The weight of the robe & the value of connection

Despite the solemnity of the judicial office, judges also carry personal experiences, cognitive biases, and emotional responses. The weight of responsibility in adjudicating complex, often emotionally charged cases can lead to stress, burnout, and decision fatigue. that judicial decisions can be influenced by factors such as time of day, caseload volume, and even personal well-being.

When judges prioritize their own well-being through physical health, mental resilience, and time away from the bench, they are better equipped to render fair and consistent decisions. Judicial wellness is not a personal luxury; rather, it is a professional imperative.

Equally important is the role of community engagement. The law does not exist in a vacuum but is shaped by social norms, economic realities, and cultural shifts. Judges who remain isolated from the communities that are affected by their rulings risk losing touch with the lived experiences of the people before them.

Judicial rulings may be the most visible part of the job, but they are not the only measure of a judge’s effectiveness — or of the judiciary’s overall health.

Engagement with the public helps judges better understand how the law impacts and operates in people’s lives. It also builds the empathy and contextual awareness needed for interpreting statutes or imposing sentences.

For example, a judge who volunteers with youth programs or participates in community forums on public safety may develop a more nuanced understanding of cases involving juvenile offenders or policing practices. Similarly, a judge who attends local cultural events or listens to community leaders may be better positioned to recognize implicit biases or systemic inequities that may be inherent in the justice system.

Community involvement also strengthens public trust. When citizens see judges as accessible and engaged, rather than distant or aloof, confidence in the judiciary increases. And these ideas of transparency and connection are key to maintaining citizens’ trust in the courts.

These themes are explored more in depth in the Thomson Reuters Institute’s video series,ĚýBeyond the Bench. For example, in the episodeĚý,ĚýAssociate Justice Tanya R. Kennedy shares her experience educating youth, participating in civic organizations, and leading legal reform initiatives. The episode also highlights how service beyond judicial duties enhances judges’ decision-making and strengthens community ties.

Another episode of the series,Ěý,Ěýexamines the personal and professional challenges faced by judges and attorneys alike. It features a candid interview with Judge Mark Pfiffer, who emphasizes the importance of mindfulness, peer support, and institutional policies that promote mental health and sustainable work practices.

A judiciary that reflects society

The same principle applies at the institutional level. A judiciary is strongest when it reflects the range of experiences and perspectives present in the society it serves.

Beyond individual judges, the judiciary can benefit from diversity and inclusion. A bench that reflects the full spectrum of society is more likely to deliver balanced and equitable justice. But diversity is not just about representation — it’s also about perspective.

Judges who have worked in public defense, civil rights advocacy, or rural legal services bring different insights to the bench than those who have spent their careers in corporate law or prosecution. These varied experiences enrich judicial deliberation and help ensure that decisions are informed by a broad understanding of justice.

Encouraging judges and court personnel to engage in lifelong learning, mentorship, and cross-sector collaboration further strengthens the judiciary. Programs that support judicial education on topics like implicit bias, trauma-informed practices, or restorative justice are essential to modern, responsive courts.

Improving judges’ well-being

The quality of justice depends not only on what happens in the courtroom, of course, but on what happens outside of it. Judges who maintain personal balance, engage with their communities, and remain open to diverse perspectives are better equipped to serve the public good.

Legal professionals, court administrators, and policymakers should support the kinds of initiatives that promote judicial wellness, community outreach, and professional development. By fostering a judiciary that looks beyond the bench, we ensure a justice system that is not only legally sound, but also humane, inclusive, and trusted.

In the end, judges and the justice they mete out are not defined by court rulings alone. It also depends on relationships, context, and public trust. Recognizing that reality is essential to preserving the well-being of the judiciary and the integrity of the law.

TheĚý“Beyond the Bench”Ěývideo series is available on

Key takeaways:

• • • Country-by-country reporting will only increase in complexity — Australia’s enhanced Country-by-country reporting (CbCR) requirements — reconciling taxes accrued against taxes credited — are a preview of where other high-scrutiny jurisdictions are heading, and companies need to build that explanatory analysis capability now, systematically, rather than scrambling later.

    • There has to be a shared narrative from corporate teams — The EU’s public CbCR is a reputational event, not just a filing. So that means tax, communications, and investor relations teams need a shared narrative before the data goes public — inconsistencies create exposure you do not want to manage reactively.

    • Rethink your filing jurisdiction in light of changes — If EU filing jurisdiction was chosen at initial implementation and never revisited, look again. Guidance has matured, and a more efficient or better-suited option may now be available.

WASHINGTON, DC — Among the many pressing topics discussed in detail at the recent , country-by-country reporting (CbCR) and its ability to reshape the corporate tax industry, certainly had its place. Between escalating local jurisdiction requirements, the , and for deeper explanatory disclosures, CbCR has quietly evolved from a transfer pricing filing obligation into something far more strategically consequential.

The floor is just the floor

The creation of the by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) was intended as a minimum standard for countries. And now jurisdictions are increasingly layering additional requirements on top of the OECD’s basic template, resulting in a widening gap between the standard requirements and what tax authorities actually want.

Currently, Australia is the most pointed example. Australian tax authorities are now requiring multinational groups to go beyond the standard CbCR data fields and provide explanatory narratives that reconcile taxes accrued against taxes actually credited. This requires corporate tax departments to bridge the gap between financial statement accruals and their organizations’ cash tax positions in a way that is coherent, defensible, and consistent with positions taken elsewhere.

At the TEI event, panelists explained that for tax departments this will carry complex timing differences, deferred tax positions, or significant jurisdictional mismatches between booked and cash taxes. Indeed, this additional layer of scrutiny will need dedicated attention.

The broader signal matters: Australia will not be the last jurisdiction to move in this direction. So that means that tax departments should treat Australia’s approach as a leading indicator of where other high-scrutiny jurisdictions could be heading. Building the capability to produce this kind of explanatory analysis systematically — rather than scrambling jurisdiction by jurisdiction — would be the smarter long-term investment for corporate tax teams.

Public CbCR in the EU: The transparency ratchet has turned

For US-based multinationals with significant European operations, the EU’s public CbCR directive has fundamentally changed the calculus. Unlike the confidential tax authority filings most corporate tax departments are accustomed to, the EU’s public CbCR rules put organizations’ jurisdictional profit and tax data into the public domain, making it visible to investors, journalists, civil society groups, and organizations’ employees and customers.

The EU framework specifies which entities trigger the reporting obligation and which entity within the group is responsible for making the public filing. That scoping analysis is not always straightforward for complex multinational structures and getting it wrong could present both reputational and legal risk.

Choosing a filing jurisdiction is not purely an administrative decision — it is a choice that affects the regulatory environment that governs the disclosure, the language requirements, the timing, and the interpretive framework that applies to data.

For US-headquartered groups, the implications extend well beyond Europe. Public CbCR data is now being read alongside US disclosures, reporting on ESG activities, and public narratives about tax governance. Inconsistencies, including those technically explainable, could create unwanted noise about the company. This is clearly another reason why the tax function should partner across the business — in this case with the communications team — to make they both are aligned to tell the CbCR story instead of being caught off guard by a journalist or an investor during an earnings call.

Questions that US multinationals should be asking

Fortunately, US multinationals with multiple EU subsidiaries are not required to file public CbCR reports in every EU member state in which they have a presence. Instead, under the EU framework, a qualifying ultimate parent or standalone undertaking can satisfy the public disclosure requirement through a single filing in one EU member state, provided the relevant conditions are met. Germany and the Netherlands have emerged as two of the more popular choices for this consolidated filing approach, given their well-developed regulatory frameworks and the depth of available guidance on what compliant disclosure looks like in practice.

The strategic implication is meaningful. Choosing a filing jurisdiction is not purely an administrative decision — it is a choice that affects the regulatory environment that governs the disclosure, the language requirements, the timing, and the interpretive framework that applies to data. Corporate tax departments that defaulted to a filing jurisdiction early in the EU implementation process should take a fresh look. Regulatory guidance has matured significantly, and there may be a more efficient or better-suited path available than the one originally chosen.

The uncomfortable divergence

There is a notable irony in the current environment. Domestically, the IRS and U.S. Treasury’s 2025-2026 Priority Guidance Plan reflects an explicit focus on deregulation and burden reduction, detailing dozens of projects aimed at reducing compliance costs for US businesses. Meanwhile, the international compliance environment has moved in the opposite direction, adding disclosure layers, explanatory requirements, and public transparency obligations that many US businesses cannot avoid simply because they are headquartered in the United States.

This divergence has a direct implication for how tax departments allocate resources and make the internal case for investment in international compliance infrastructure. The burden internationally is not going down — indeed, it is intensifying — and that argument is now backed by concrete examples rather than projections.

3 things worth doing now

There are several actions that corporate tax teams should consider, including:

Audit CbCR data quality with Australia’s enhanced requirements in mind — If you cannot readily reconcile taxes accrued to taxes credited at the jurisdictional level, that gap needs to be closed before it becomes an authority inquiry.

Revisit EU filing jurisdiction strategy — If your jurisdictional decision was made at the time of initial implementation and has not been reviewed since, it is worth a fresh look before the next reporting cycle.

Develop an internal narrative around public CbCR data before it circulates externally — Your company’s tax story should not be a surprise to the corporate teams involved in communications, investor relations, or ESG — and in today’s world, assuming such news stays quiet is no longer a safe assumption.

While CbCR started as a tool for tax authorities, it today has become something more visible, more public, and more consequential than that — and that trajectory is not reversing any time soon.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s

Key takeaways:

• • • AI frameworks need to keep up with implementation — While AI governance frameworks are being developed and enacted globally, their effectiveness depends on enforceable mechanisms within domestic justice systems.

    • Access to justice is essential for trustworthy AI regulation — Rights and protections are only meaningful if individuals can understand, challenge, and seek remedies for AI-driven decisions. Without operational access, governance frameworks risk remaining theoretical.

    • People-centered justice and human rights must anchor AI governance — Embedding human rights standards and ensuring equal access to justice in AI regulation strengthens public trust, accountability, and the credibility of both public institutions and private companies.

AI governance is accelerating across global, national, and local levels. As public investment in AI infrastructure expands, new oversight bodies are emerging to assess safety, risk, and accountability. The global policy conversation has from principles to the implementation of meaningful guardrails and AI governance frameworks, which legislators now are drafting and enacting.

These developments reflect growing recognition that AI systems demand structured oversight and a shift from voluntary safeguards and standards to institutionalized governance. One critical dimension remains underdeveloped, however: how do these frameworks function in practice? Are they enforceable? Do they provide accountability? Do they ensure equal access?

AI governance will not succeed on the strength of international declarations or regulatory design alone; rather, domestic justice systems will determine whether it works. At this intersection, the connection between AI governance and access to justice becomes real.

In early February, leaders across government, the legal sector, international organizations, industry, and civil society convened for an expert discussion. The following reflections attempt to build on that dialogue and its urgency.

From principles to enforcement

Over the past decade, AI governance has evolved from hypothetical ethical guidelines to voluntary commitments, binding regulatory frameworks, and risk-based approaches. Due to these game-changing advancements, however, many past attempts to provide structure and governance have been quickly outpaced by technology and are insufficient without enforcement mechanisms. As Anoush Rima Tatevossian of The Future Society observed: “The judicial community should have a role to play not only in shaping policies, but in how they are implemented.”

Frameworks establish expectations, while courts and dispute resolution mechanisms interpret rules, test rights, evaluate harm, assign responsibility, and determine remedies. If individuals are not empowered to safeguard their rights and cannot access these mechanisms, governance frameworks remain theoretical or are casually ignored.

This challenge reflects a broader structural constraint. Even without AI, legal systems struggle to meet demand. In the United States alone, 92% of people do not receive the help they need in accessing their rights in the justice system. Introducing AI into this environment without strengthening access can risk widening, rather than narrowing, the justice gap.

There’s growing recognition that AI systems demand structured oversight and a shift from voluntary safeguards and standards to institutionalized governance.

Justice systems serve as the operational core of AI governance. By inserting the rule of law into unregulated areas, they provide the infrastructure that enables accountability by interpreting regulatory provisions in specific cases, assessing whether AI-related harms violate legal standards, allocating responsibility across public and private actors, and providing accessible pathways for redress.

These frameworks also generate critical feedback. Disputes involving AI systems expose gaps in transparency, fairness, and accountability. Legal professionals see where governance frameworks first break down in real-world conditions, often long before policymakers do. As a result, these frameworks function as an early signal of policy effectiveness and rights protections.

Importantly, AI governance does not require entirely new legal foundations. Human rights frameworks already provide standards for legality, non-discrimination, due process, and access to remedy, and these standards apply directly to AI-enabled decision-making. “AI can assist judges but must never replace human judgment, accountability, or due process,” said Kate Fox Principi, Lead on the Administration of Justice at the United Nations (UN) Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), during the February panel.

Clearly, rights are only meaningful when individuals can exercise them — this constraint is not conceptual, it’s operational. Systems must be understandable, affordable, and responsive, and institutions should be capable of evaluating complex, technology-enabled disputes.

Trust, markets & accountability

Governance frameworks that do not account for these dynamics risk entrenching inequities rather than mitigating them. An individual’s ability to understand, challenge, and seek a remedy for automated decisions determines whether governance is credible. A people-centered justice approach, as established in the , asks whether individuals can meaningfully engage with the system, not just whether rules exist. For example, women face documented barriers to accessing justice in any jurisdiction. AI systems trained on biased data can replicate or amplify existing disparities in employment, financial services, healthcare, and criminal justice.

“Institutional agreement rings hollow when billions of people experience governance as remote, technocratic, and unresponsive to their actual lives,” said Alfredo Pizarro of the Permanent Mission of Costa Rica to the UN. “People-centered justice becomes essential.”

AI systems already shape outcomes across employment, financial services, housing, and justice. Entrepreneurs, law schools, courts, and legal services organizations are already building AI-enabled tools that help people navigate legal processes and assert their rights more effectively. Governance design will determine whether these tools help spread access to justice and or introduce new barriers.

Private companies play a central role in developing and deploying AI systems. Their products shape economic and social outcomes at scale. For them, trust is not abstract; it is a success metric. “Innovation depends on trust,” explained Iain Levine, formerly of Meta’s Human Rights Policy Team. “Without trust, products will not be adopted.” And trust, in turn, depends on enforceability and equal access to remedy.

AI governance will succeed or fail based on access

As Pizarro also noted, justice provides “normative continuity across technological rupture.” Indeed, these principles already exist within international human rights law and people-centered justice; although they precede the advent of autonomous systems, they provide standards for evaluating discrimination, surveillance, and procedural fairness, and remain durable as new challenges to upholding justice and the rule of law emerge.

People-centered justice was not designed for legal systems addressing AI-related harms, but its outcome-driven orientation remains durable as new justice problems emerge.

The current stage presents an opportunity to align AI governance with access to justice from the outset. Beyond well-drafted rules, we need systems that people can use. And that means that any effective governance requires coordination between policymakers, legal professionals, and the public.

You can find other installments ofĚýour Scaling Justice blog seriesĚýhere

Key insights:

• • • SAR volume is significantly underreported — Continuing and amended filings add approximately 20% to the official count yet remain invisible in trend analyses.

    • Filing activity is highly concentrated — A few large financial institutions dominate SARs volume, meaning trends reflect their practices more than systemic changes.

    • Agentic AI will drive a surge in SARs — Agentic AI risks increased noise over actionable intelligence, without addressing the unresolved question of whether current filings yield meaningful law enforcement outcomes.

The Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) that financial institutions file with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) provide valuable insight, although they may not offer a comprehensive picture.

Prior to meaningful discussions regarding the future of SARs, it is essential for the financial crime community to clarify what is being measured. In 2025, for example, SAR filings of more than 4.1 million, representing an almost 8% increase compared to the total number of SARs filed in 2024.

Every figure FinCEN has published reflects original SARs only. Continuing activity SARs, which represent roughly 15% of all filings, are submitted under the original Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) identification number and never appear as new filings. Corrected and amended SARs add another 5% on top of that. This makes the real volume of SARs activity approximately 20% higher than what is reported.

The average community bank files fewer than one SAR a week, while the largest institutions file more than 500 a day.

Recent FinCEN guidance giving financial institutions more flexibility around continuing activity SARs sounds significant on paper, but as former Wells Fargo BSA/AML chief Jim Richards points out: “It won’t change the reported numbers — because those filings were never counted to begin with.” Financial crime professionals need to keep that gap in mind every time a trend line gets cited.

2025 was steady, not spectacular

There were roughly 300,000 SARs filed every single month of 2025, and the most notable thing is that nothing notable happened. That is likely a first on the volume side and worth acknowledging, but beyond that milestone the year did not hand financial crime professionals anything noteworthy. In a space that has dealt with pandemic distortions, crypto chaos, and fraud spikes that seemed to come out of nowhere, steady volume and predictable patterns are a little surprising. A quiet data set, however, is not the same as a quiet landscape, and financial crime professionals who are reading stability as stagnation may find themselves flat-footed when the numbers start moving again.

For example, one of the most underleveraged insights in the SARs space is just how concentrated filing activity really is. The numbers are stark: The top four banks file more SARs in a single day than 80% of the rest of the banks file in 10 years, according to 2019 data from a .

The average community bank files fewer than one SAR a week, while the largest institutions file more than 500 a day. “50 a year versus 500 a day,” notes Wells Fargo’s Richards, adding that such asymmetry has real implications for how the financial industry interprets trends. Meaningful movement in SARs data, up or down, is almost entirely dependent on what a handful of mega-institutions decide to do.

Not surprisingly, money services businesses (MSBs) are the second largest filing category, and virtual currency exchanges are almost certainly driving recent growth there, even if outdated category definitions make that difficult to confirm directly. Credit unions round out the top three.

The filing philosophy hasn’t changed and shouldn’t

Regulatory noise occasionally suggests that institutions should be more selective about what they file. However, compliance and legal reality have not shifted. No institution has ever faced serious consequences for filing too many SARs, and the cases that result in enforcement actions, reputational damage, and regulatory scrutiny are consistently about missed filings or late ones.

“You’re not going to get in trouble from filing too much,” Richards says. “Nobody ever has, and I doubt if anyone ever will.” For financial crime professionals, the calculus remains exactly what it has always been — when in doubt, file. That posture isn’t going to change, and frankly it shouldn’t.

Yet, here is where the SARs space gets genuinely interesting. Agentic AI use in SARs filings — systems in which multiple AI agents work through a case from screening to decision to documentation — is beginning to move from concept to deployment. The impact on filing volume likely will be significant.

The risk is a system flooded with AI-generated SARs of variable quality, creating more noise for law enforcement to sort through rather than sharper intelligence to act upon.

Whereas a small team today might work through a handful of cases a week, AI-assisted workflows could push that into the dozens. Multiply that across institutions already inclined to file rather than miss something, and the result is a coming surge in SARs volume that could play out over the next two to four years.

“Agentic AI has the potential to be a game changer on how we do our work,” Richards explains. “But I believe it’ll guarantee that there will be more SARs filed and not necessarily better and fewer SARs filed.” Indeed, the critical point for the financial crime community to internalize is exactly that.

The risk is a system flooded with AI-generated SARs of variable quality, creating more noise for law enforcement to sort through rather than sharper intelligence to act upon. Once the largest institutions adopt agentic AI as a best practice, others will follow quickly, and regulators will likely be several steps behind.

The value question can’t wait

The has been in place since 2014. Yet after 12 years of filings, the financial crime community still lacks a clear public accounting of whether that data has produced actionable law enforcement outcomes.

So, the question Richards is asking is one the entire industry should be asking: “Has anybody asked law enforcement?”

This question reflects a larger challenge that the industry needs to confront more aggressively, especially as AI technology is set to dramatically increase filing volume across the board. Increasing the volume without improving how the information is used does not represent progress. If SARs are not generating real investigative value, the solution is not to file more of them faster — instead, the pipeline should be fixed before it grows any bigger.

You can find more about the challenges that financial institutions face in managing SARs here

Key insights:

• • • AI’s greatest strength in criminal justice is pattern recognition— AI can process vast amounts of data quickly, helping law enforcement and legal professionals detect connections, reduce oversight gaps, and improve consistency across investigations and casework.

    • AI should strengthen justice, not substitute for human judgment— Legal professionals are integral to evaluating AI-generated outputs, especially when decisions affect evidence, warrants, and individuals’ constitutional rights.

    • The most effective model is human/AI collaboration— AI handles scale and speed, while judges, attorneys, and investigators provide context, accountability, and ethical reasoning needed to protect due process.

The law has always been about patterns — patterns of behavior, patterns of evidence, and patterns of justice. Now, courts and law enforcement can leverage a tool powerful enough to see those patterns at a scale at a speed no human mind could match: AI.

At its core, AI works by recognizing patterns. Rather than simply matching keywords, it learns from large amounts of existing text to understand meaning and context and uses that learning to make predictions about what comes next. In the context of law enforcement, that capability is nothing short of transformative.

These themes were front and center in a recent webinar, , from theĚý, a joint effort by the National Center for State CourtsĚý(NCSC) and the Thomson Reuters Institute (TRI). The webinar brought together voices from across the justice system, and what emerged was a clear and consistent message: AI is a powerful ally in the pursuit of justice, but only when paired with the judgment, accountability, and constitutional grounding that human professionals can provide.

AI’s pattern recognition is a gamechanger

“AI is excellent,” said Mark Cheatham, Chief of Police in Acworth, Georgia, during the webinar. “It is better than anyone else in your office at recognizing patterns. No doubt about it. It is the smartest, most capable employee that you have.”

That kind of capability, applied to the demands of modern policing, investigation, and prosecution, is a genuine gamechanger. However, the promise of AI extends far beyond the patrol car or the precinct. Indeed, it cascades through the entire arc of justice — from the moment a crime is detected all the way through prosecution and adjudication.

Each step in that chain represents not just an operational and efficiency upgrade, but an opportunity to make the system more fair, more consistent, and more protective of the rights of everyone involved.

Webinar participants considered the practical implications. For example, AI can identify and mitigate human error in decision-making, promoting greater consistency and fairness in outcomes across cases. And by automating labor-intensive tasks such as reviewing body camera footage, AI frees prosecutors and defense attorneys to focus on other aspects of their work that demand professional judgment and legal expertise.

In legal education, the potential of AI is similarly recognized. Hon. Eric DuBois of the 9th Judicial Circuit Court in Florida emphasizes its role as a tool rather than a substitute. “I encourage the law students to use AI as a starting point,” Judge DuBois explained. “But it’s not going to replace us. You’ve got to put the work in, you’ve got to put the effort in.”

AI can never replace the detective, the prosecutor, the judge, or the defense attorney; however, it can work alongside them, handling the volume and velocity of data that no human team could process alone.

Judge DuBois’ perspective aligns with broader judicial sentiment on the responsible integration of AI. In fact, one consistent theme across the webinar was the necessity of maintaining human oversight. The role of the legal professional remains central, participants stressed, because that ensures accuracy, accountability, and ethical judgment. The appropriate placement of human expertise within AI-assisted processes is essential to ensuring a fair and effective legal system.

That balance between leveraging AI and preserving human judgment is not just good practice, rather it’s a cornerstone of justice. While Chief Cheatham praises AI’s pattern recognition, he also cautions that it “will call in sick, frequently and unexpectedly.” In other words, AI is a powerful but imperfect tool, and those professionals who rely on it must always be prepared to intervene in those situations in which AI falls short. Moreover, the technology is improving extremely rapidly, and the models we are using today will likely be the worst models we ever use.

Naturally, that readiness is especially critical when individuals’ rights are on the line. “A human cannot just rely on that machine,” said Joyce King, Deputy State’s Attorney for Frederick County in Maryland. “You need a warrant to open that cyber tip separately, to get human eyes on that for confirmation, that we cannot rely on the machine.” Clearly, as the webinar explained, AI does not replace constitutional obligations; rather, it operates within them, and the professionals who use AI are still the guardians of due process.

The human/AI partnership is where justice is served

Bob Rhodes, Chief Technology Officer for ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę Special Services (TRSS) echoed that sentiment with a principle that cuts across every application of AI in the justice system. “The number one thing… is a human should always be in the loop to verify what the systems are giving them,” Rhodes said.

This is not a limitation of AI; instead, it’s the design of a system that works. AI identifies the patterns, and trained, experienced professionals evaluate them, act on them, and are accountable for them.

That partnership is where the real opportunity lives. AI can never replace the detective, the prosecutor, the judge, or the defense attorney. However, it can work alongside them, handling the volume and velocity of data that no human team could process alone. So that means the humans in the room can focus on what they do best: applying judgment, upholding the law, and protecting an individual’s rights.

For judicial and law enforcement professionals, this is the moment to lean in. The patterns are there, the technology to read them is here, and the opportunity to use both in service of rights — not against them — has never been greater.

You can find out more about the webinars from the AI Policy Consortium here