You can read TRI’s latest “Inside the Shift” feature,ĚýThe AI adoption board game: Why law firm leaders can’t afford to play it safe here

Let’s be honest: most law firms know AI is a big deal. They’ve read the headlines, attended the conferences, and nodded along when someone says, “AI will change everything.” The problem? Knowing that AI matters and actually doing something strategic about it are two very different things. And according to our latest Inside the Shift feature article, that gap is where many law firms are starting to lose ground.

Our latest Inside the Shift feature, author Michelle Nesbitt-Burrell, Marketing Strategy Director for ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę (TR), frames AI adoption as a boardgame that’s already underway. Some law firms are moving confidently across the board, while others are stuck on the starting square, not because they don’t see the future, but because they’re hesitating. The latest TRI research shows that while the majority of lawyers say they believe AI will fundamentally transform the legal industry within the next few years, far fewer expect real change inside their own firms anytime soon. That disconnect is risky — especially when competitors and clients aren’t waiting around.

Here’s what should concern every law firm partner — corporate legal departments aren’t just playing the same AI adoption game, they’re winning it.

 

One of the most uncomfortable truths the article reveals is that corporate legal departments are further often ahead on AI adoption and utilization than their outside counsel. In fact, many corporate legal teams are investing in AI faster and using it more deeply in their day‑to‑day legal work. That means clients are reviewing contracts faster, doing more work internally, and increasingly judging their outside law firms on their technological sophistication. In a world like that, the excuse that We’re still experimenting stops sounding reasonable pretty quickly.

The article breaks law firms into three players on the game board:

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. The laggards — Those firms with no meaningful AI plans and very little ROI to show for it.
            2. The adopters — Thos firms that are experimenting with tools but don’t really have a clear strategy. These firms see some efficiency gains but too often hit a ceiling.
            3. The innovators — Those firms with visible, intentional AI strategies. These firms are far more likely to see ROI, revenue growth, and long‑term competitive advantages.

So, what separates the winners from everyone else? The article details the PLAYERS framework: pilot with purpose, leadership that sets the pace, action over perfection, strong ethics, serious education, good data, and — most importantly — strategy before tools. In other words, those law firms that want to become innovators should stop asking, What AI should we buy? and start asking What are we actually trying to achieve?

Clearly, AI isn’t a side project anymore. Law firms that treat it like one may save some time, but as the article fully explains, those firms that approach AI adoption and implementation strategically will reshape how legal work gets done. The game is already moving — the only question is whether your firm is playing to win or quietly falling behind.

You can find moreĚýInside the Shift feature articlesĚýfrom the Thomson Reuters Institute here

You can read TRI’s latest “Inside the Shift” feature,ĚýThe human side of AI: The growing risks of ubiquitous use of AI on talent here

It’s no exaggeration to say that AI is everywhere in our workplaces right now. It writes our emails, summarizes our meetings, generates slides, and even helps us think through problems. On the surface, this may sound like progress — and in many ways, it is.

However, our latestĚýInside the ShiftĚýfeature, The human side of AI: The growing risks of ubiquitous use of AI on talent by Natalie Runyon, Content Strategist for Sustainability and Human Rights Crimes for the Thomson Reuters Institute, makes a clear and timely point: When AI use becomes excessive and unchecked, it can quietly undermine the very people it’s meant to help.

One major consequence of cognitive decay is the weakening of the brain’s capacity to engage deeply, question systematically, and — somewhat ironically — resist the potential manipulation of AI.

As the article goes into in much greater detail, these harms caused by AI overuse can include a slow erosion of human connections, a loss of a professional’s sense of purpose, and a general sense of feeling overwhelmed in the workplace.

Of course, the solution isn’t to reject AI, it’s to use it better. To this end, the article makes a strong case for organizations to foster hybrid intelligence, a process by which human judgment and creativity work alongside AI capabilities.

In today’s workplace, AI can be a powerful advantage; however, that is only if organizational leaders can remember that technology should enhance the human experience, not replaces the parts of professional life that workers value.

To examine this and many more situations, the Thomson Reuters Institute (TRI) has launched a new feature segment,ĚýInside the Shift, that leverages our expert analysis and supporting data to tell some of the most compelling stories professional services today

You can read TRI’s latest “Inside the Shift” feature,ĚýPremortem: Your 2028 agentic AI pilot program failedĚýhere

Picture this: It’s 2028, your law firm spent real money on an agentic AI pilot, and now it’s quietly been shut down. No press release, no victory lap — just a post‑mortem that nobody wants to read. In our latestĚýInside the Shift feature article, we see that such a future is very likely unless firms start preparing for agentic AI in a way that’s very different than how they think they should.

The big idea is simple but uncomfortable: Success with generative AI (GenAI) does not mean your organization is ready for agentic AI. GenAI works because it’s forgiving. You can paste text into a tool, get a decent answer, and move on — even if your data is messy and your workflows live in people’s heads. Agentic AI doesn’t work that way. It expects clean data, documented processes, and clear rules. If your firm runs on institutional memory, workarounds, and a kind of just ask Linda problem-solving process, then the system will eventually break down.

To examine this and many more situations, the Thomson Reuters Institute (TRI) has launched a new feature segment,ĚýInside the Shift, that leverages our expert analysis and supporting data to tell some of the most compelling stories professional services today.

Our latest Inside the Shift feature, Premortem: Your 2028 agentic AI pilot program failedĚýby Bryce Engelland, Enterprise Content Lead for Innovation & Technology for the Thomson Reuters Institute, walks us through two fictional but painfully familiar failure stories of how two separate firms handled their agentic AI pilot programs.

The author explains how the first firm moves fast after crushing their GenAI rollout and assuming agentic AI is just the next logical step. Everything looks great in a sandbox; but then the system hits real‑world chaos: Undocumented exceptions, fragmented document storage, and conflict checks that only work because humans intuitively know when something feels off. One bad intake decision later, client trust is damaged and the pilot is frozen. In this example, the tech didn’t fail — the organization did.

The second firm goes the opposite direction. They’re cautious, thoughtful, and obsessed with governance. They build guardrails, limit risk, and launch a perfectly reasonable pilot. And then… nothing happens. Attorneys ignore the system — not because they hate AI, but because using it only adds risk with no reward. If it works as it’s supposed to, nothing changes; but if something goes wrong, they’ll be blamed. So, unsurprisingly, the rational choice is to nod in meetings and quietly keep doing things the old way until the project dies of inertia.

The challenge is that “preparing” doesn’t mean what most people think. It doesn’t mean buying early, and it doesn’t mean waiting for maturity. Rather, preparing means understanding now why these systems fail, and building the institutional capacity to avoid those failures when the technology arrives in full.

The feature article points out the common thread here: These failures have very little to do with AI capability; rather, they’re about incentives, documentation, and institutional honesty. Firms that succeed with agentic AI won’t be the ones that buy in early or wait patiently. The winners, the piece explains, be the ones doing the boring, unsexy work now: Writing things down, fixing information architecture, identifying hidden dependencies, and aligning rewards so adoption isn’t all risk and no upside.

In short, this article isn’t a warning about technology. It’s a warning about pretending your organization is ready when it’s not — and mistaking optimism or caution for preparation.

So, dive a little deeper behind the headlines about AI adoption and how to make agentic AI work for your organization. Click through and read today’s Inside the Shift feature. It might help you see more clearly than before whether the path your organization is pursuing with agentic AI will carry it over the goal line and into the next decade… or leave your team watching from the sidelines.

You can find moreĚýInside the Shift feature articlesĚýfrom the Thomson Reuters Institute here

You can read TRI’s first “Inside the Shift” feature, The 4 scenarios: Which law firm business model are you building? here

If you’re running a law firm right now, you’ve probably felt it — the ground is shifting fast. AI isn’t some future consideration; indeed, it’s already shaping how clients choose their firms, how work gets done, and which business models are built to last.

To examine this situation — and many more in the future — more deeply, the Thomson Reuters Institute (TRI) has begun publishing a new feature segment, , that will allow our expert analysis and supporting data to more fully tell some of the most important stories in the legal, tax, accounting, corporate, and government areas.

Our first Inside the Shift feature, The 4 scenarios: Which law firm business model are you building? by Elizabeth Duffy, TRI’s Senior Director of Client Engagement and Raghu Ramanathan, President of ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę Legal Professional business, cuts through much of the noise around AI adoption in the legal industry. The piece lays out a clear, uncomfortable truth: in the age of AI, strategic clarity isn’t optional — it’s survival.

For years, many law firms have tried to hedge their bets. A little bespoke work here, a little efficiency there. Premium pricing mixed with cost pressure. The result? A mushy middle that feels safe but is actually the most dangerous place to be. As the feature makes clear: Law firms without a distinct position — neither elite, automated, scaled, nor protected by regulation — are the ones most exposed to existential risk.

And here’s the kicker that the authors point out: Clients aren’t waiting for firms to catch up.

Corporate legal departments are already evaluating firms based on their AI maturity — how effectively they use technology to deliver speed, consistency, and quality. This is happening even as many clients are still figuring out their own AI strategies. In other words, law firms are being judged by their clients right now, whether they’re ready or not.

Client pressure is building faster than internal capabilities can keep pace.

Even corporate legal departments new to AI are asking pointed questions of outside counsel.

The authors don’t argue that there’s one correct model. Instead, the piece lays out four distinct scenarios that law firm leaders can choose from, making the case that choosing something deliberately is far better than drifting. Of course, each scenario demands different investments in talent, technology, pricing, and client engagement. What they all share, however, is intention.

That’s what makes this piece — and future Inside the Shift features — so valuable. It’s not full of hype, and it’s not fear‑mongering. Rather it’s offering a strategic framework for leaders who know that AI is reshaping professional service markets but are still wrestling with what that actually means for their organization.

If you’re a managing partner, innovation leader, or industry watcher who’s tired of vague predictions and wants a clearer map of what’s ahead, the Inside the Shift features will be well worth your time. The questions they will raise — about positioning, differentiation, and the cost of standing still — aren’t comfortable, but they’re exactly the questions firms need to be asking now.

So don’t just skim the headlines about AI in law. Click through and read today’s Inside the Shift feature. It might help you see, more clearly than before, which business model you’re actually building in your law firm — and whether it’s the one that will be able to carry your firm into the next decade.

You can find more from the Thomson Reuters Institute here