Key insights:

• • • Law firms have moved from restricting GenAI use (Don’t use tools that leak client data) to mandating it (Incorporate AI into your practice and market our firm’s GenAI capabilities)—��Neither phase has given rank and file lawyers what they really need: Guidance on in which instances GenAI actually helps deliver better, cheaper, and faster legal services, where it introduces serious professional risk, and how to tell the difference.

    • GenAI’s capacity to transform legal work for the better is real, but so is its capacity to degrade it��—GenAI can significantly boost speed and quality on tasks involving breadth, synthesis, or straightforward analysis, but it can weaken performance on complex judgment and revision tasks — especially for stronger professionals — by encouraging overconfidence, missed issues, and superficial reasoning.

    • A use-mode framework can close the��gap— A proposed governance framework can give law firm leadership a practical tool for identifying in which situations GenAI enhances legal work, where it introduces serious risk, and where professional judgment is non-negotiable.

This article synthesizes findings from the author’s paper,

Your law firm undoubtedly has a policy around generative AI (GenAI), which probably tells lawyers to avoid tools that leak client data, admonishes them to look out for hallucinations, and encourages them to incorporate AI into their practice to satisfy client demands.

However, it likely does not tell them which cognitive functions they should delegate to GenAI, which they should not, and where the line between the two is absolute. In the space between restriction and mandate, lawyers are making consequential decisions about GenAI delegation every day. Meanwhile, most law firms have not addressed that space with meaningful governance.

GenAI can make legal work worse

GenAI’s capacity to transform legal work for the better is real, but so is its capacity to degrade it. Most law firm leaders know that AI can hallucinate; yet far fewer know that it can make expert legal judgment and work product actively worse.

The best evidence of this dynamic comes from a with consultants from the Boston Consulting Group, who were given similar tasks and allowed to use various levels of AI assistance, including no AI. For professional tasks requiring breadth and option generation, GenAI delivered, showing that output quality improved by 40% and consultants worked faster. For tasks requiring judgment and synthesis, however, something unexpected happened. Consultants using GenAI were 19% less likely to produce correct solutions than those working without it.

Governing GenAI’s uneven performance requires asking a question that most law firms are not asking: What cognitive function is being delegated to GenAI at each step in the workflow?

The same pattern appears in research evaluating GenAI use in legal analysis. An empirical in the Journal of Legal Education confirmed that AI dramatically improves performance on straightforward analysis while producing no measurable benefit for complex reasoning. And in the case of complex reasoning, GenAI use also introduced recurring failures, such as jumping to conclusions, missing less obvious issues, and generating confident prose that masks superficial analysis.

from the University of Minnesota focused on legal tasks showed that GenAI assistance on a synthesis task improved performance by nearly 60% and produced a surprising downstream benefit. Those participants who used AI for synthesis outperformed the control group on the subsequent independent reasoning task even after GenAI was removed. However, when GenAI was introduced at the revision stage, the picture changed. GenAI helped weaker performers, but it actively degraded the work of stronger ones. Indeed, the best lawyers in the study produced worse revised work product when they used GenAI than when they worked without it.

A use-mode governance framework

Given all these findings, governing GenAI’s uneven performance requires asking a question that most law firms are not asking. Instead of determining whether GenAI is appropriate for a particular deliverable — such as a brief, a contract, or a board presentation — the governance question instead should be: What cognitive function is being delegated to GenAI at each step in the workflow?

My proposed framework, outlined below, organizes common GenAI uses into seven recurring modes following the sequence in which lawyers actually use GenAI to produce legal work product. Then, governance controls are calibrated to the risk profile of each mode.

Modes 1 and 2: Retrieval and organization

At the mechanical end of the cognitive spectrum are two distinct functions. In retrieval mode (Mode 1), a lawyer reviewing a merger agreement asks GenAI to identify every representation and warranty in the document. In organization mode (Mode 2), a litigator reviewing 50 depositions asks GenAI to construct a timeline from the testimony. The first locates material that already exists. The second arranges it into a usable structure. No new content is created in either case, and both uses are low-risk and should be actively encouraged, subject to modest verification controls. Firms that unduly restrict these use modes are leaving value on the table.

Mode 3: Summarization

Summarization (Mode 3) introduces selection risk. In this mode, GenAI chooses what to emphasize, include, and omit. Consider a lawyer preparing a board presentation on the results of an internal investigation. GenAI can condense dozens of witness interviews into key points and themes in minutes; however, a summary may focus on procedural detail while missing credibility issues that a lawyer would immediately recognize as material. The appropriate control is to mandate meaningful review by a lawyer with first-hand knowledge of the source material. A lawyer encountering the summary cold has no reliable way to evaluate what GenAI missed.

Mode 4: Candidate generation

Mode 4 is exploratory. A lawyer drafting a brief might ask GenAI to generate a list of potential arguments, propose alternative framings, or identify supporting authority. This candidate material expands options and accelerates iteration. The work product is not filing-ready and must be treated as provisional. GenAI can suggest, but a lawyer must decide.

The authority verification obligation at this stage deserves special emphasis. GenAI will identify cases, summarize holdings, and weave them into an argument structure. Thus, the output will read fluently and cite real-looking cases. However, a lawyer cannot assume the model has accurately characterized the holdings or context, and any authority cited in an external filing must be independently read and verified. GenAI can help find the cases, but a lawyer must read and apply them.

Mode 5: Editing and rewriting

In Mode 5, a lawyer asks GenAI to tighten a dense contract provision or restructure a wordy paragraph, risking, of course, unintended meaning change. An edit may read cleanly while subtly narrowing a representation, softening a covenant, or eliminating a carve-out. The revision risk is not hypothetical. The University of Minnesota study referenced above found that stronger performers produced worse work product when GenAI revised their independently produced memos. In this mode, a lawyer must confirm that the edit produced no shift in meaning and introduced no new factual assertions.

Mode 6: Critique and stress-testing

Mode 6 may be the most underutilized GenAI capability. Before filing a brief or presenting to regulators, a lawyer can ask GenAI to identify weaknesses in their argument. In this way, GenAI finds vulnerabilities before adversaries do; and unlike every other mode, the risk here runs in one direction. Lawyers who skip this step are missing one of GenAI’s core value propositions. Law firms’ governance frameworks should not merely permit it but actually require it in appropriate cases.

Mode 7: Evaluation and decision

The boundary against AI delegation becomes absolute when GenAI is asked to evaluate or decide. A lawyer advising a board on whether an event requires disclosure cannot delegate that determination to GenAI. A litigator assessing settlement value cannot outsource probability judgments because these are core expressions of professional responsibility. In this mode, GenAI may inform background analysis, but it may not substitute for lawyer judgment in making the call. This is a categorical prohibition — professional judgment cannot be delegated.

Going forward with GenAI

Law firm leaders who have moved their GenAI policy from restriction to mandate without governing the space between have not finished the job. Their lawyers are making consequential decisions about GenAI use every day without the guidance they need and deserve.

The use-mode framework presented above gives firm leadership a practical tool for filling that gap. It identifies the instances in which GenAI enhances legal work, where it introduces serious risk, and where professional judgment is non-negotiable. Firms that govern at that level will capture GenAI’s value; and those firms that do not will have policies that look serious but govern nothing important.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author in his individual capacity and do not represent the views, positions, or opinions of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners or clients, or the University of Wisconsin Law School.

Key insights:

• • • UK law firms face a more selective growth market in 2026��— Client demand remains steady, but external legal spend expectations have cooled, with growth concentrated in areas such as Regulatory, Labor & Employment, and international work.

    • Legal expertise alone is no longer enough — UK legal buyers increasingly favor law firms that combine technical excellence with commercial judgment, business understanding, and practical guidance aligned to client priorities.

    • AI adoption is becoming a client expectation��— Corporate legal teams are moving faster than their outside law firms on GenAI, and many UK legal buyers now expect outside counsel to use AI to improve efficiency, workflows, and the quality of legal work.

The legal market in the United Kingdom today has shifted into a new normal. While law firms saw an explosion of demand and spending immediately following the pandemic, increasing client caution has resulted in a shift in priorities. Today’s law firms cannot simply rely on their old ways of providing legal service to succeed, as UK clients expect firms to combine expertise, commercial judgment, international reach, and visible AI-enabled improvements in how legal work is delivered.

Jump to ↓

2026 State of the UK Legal Market

A new report from the Thomson Reuters Institute, “2026 State of the UK Legal Market,” reveals how the UK legal market is shifting, as more judicious clients are beginning to force law firms to reassess their strategy. Overall anticipated net spend from legal clients has seen declining growth rates in recent years, and while some practices like Regulatory and Labor & Employment continue to see strong demand growth, other practice areas such as Insurance, IP, and Disputes face potential contraction.

This shift is also guided by emerging buyer preferences. The report reveals an increasing commerciality to the UK legal market, one in which clients increasingly favor advisors that combine legal excellence with commercial judgement, and those that are leveraging AI to bolster not only efficiency but improve the overall legal work product.

Taken as a whole, the report paints a picture of clients that now are moving faster than their outside legal advisors, strengthening their internal capabilities, and setting clearer (and higher) expectations. This means that UK law firms cannot rest on their laurels, as clients increasingly push their outside firms to keep up with new business challenges.

The market is cautious, but opportunity remains

The report reveals that UK legal buyers are more cautious about external legal spend than they have been at any point in the last five years. That may mean law firms can no longer rely on the broad-based demand that defined the post-pandemic period and instead need to be more precise about where opportunity exists — and where it doesn’t.

The report tracks buyer sentiment through net spend anticipation (NSA), which measures the share of buyers expecting to increase external legal spend over the next 12 months minus those expecting to decrease it. Since its 2021 peak, UK NSA has fallen steadily to +5 percentage points in 2025, returning the market to the more stable, single-digit baseline that was seen before the pandemic.

For those law firms looking to capture increased business, the report makes clear that legal expertise is now the price of entry, not the point of differentiation. The firms that stand out will be those that know how to apply their expertise in ways that reflect the client’s business realities.

Indeed, that is becoming even more important as corporate legal departments face growing pressure to demonstrate their own value to the wider organization, and they’re increasingly pointing to improvements in their own quality and effectiveness even before mentioning cost savings, efficiency, or time savings. Not surprisingly, more than one-third of UK legal buyers now cite business savviness as a reason they favor a particular law firm.

To help demonstrate their internal value, clients are pushing their outside law firms to leverage advanced technology to improve the overall effectiveness of legal work. Of course, this has resulted in a clear gap, the report notes, between how corporate legal teams are moving and how law firms are responding. For instance, the report shows that more than half of UK corporate legal respondents say their organizations are already using GenAI tools across the business, compared with just about one-third law firm respondents who said this.

That difference in outlook matters because clients increasingly believe AI will become a larger part of how legal work is delivered, and they’re not content to simply wait and see whether their outside counsel will fully adopt the technology. Indeed, corporate legal departments are expecting their outside law firms to keep pace with how legal work is changing, and they will reward those firms that do.

You can download

a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s “2026 State of the UK Legal Market” by filling out the form below:

Key findings:

• • • Pricing and demand are exceptionally strong, but profits aren’t keeping up — Despite worked rate growth reaching above 12% for the largest of the Am Law 100 firms and demand growth hitting almost three-times its historical average, the LFFI landed at a flat 55, its own long‑run historical average.

    • Rising costs, falling productivity, and geopolitics are quietly offsetting gains — Overhead expenses climbed, productivity slipped back into contraction, and a widening performance gap between large firms and the rest dragged on overall results; meanwhile, the Iran war appears to be dampening demand on the edges of both transactional and counter-cyclical work.

    • The market is splitting sharply by segment — Am Law 100 firms continue to drive pricing power and lead technology investment, while Midsize firms have seen rate growth slow, demand lag, and costs rise faster than revenue, all reinforcing an increasingly scale‑driven competitive divide.

The Thomson Reuters Institute’s Law Firm Financial Index (LFFI) for the first quarter of 2026 landed at 55, exactly matching the long‑run historical average since the Index began tracking the market in 2006. On its face, that may sound unremarkable; but dig one layer deeper, and Q1 2026 becomes one of the more puzzling quarters we’ve seen in years.

Jump to ↓

Q1 2026 Law Firm Financial Index

Let’s start with the inputs. Am Law 100 firms pushed worked rate growth to almost 10%, building on an already record‑setting 2025 and marking one of the strongest pricing environments in recent memory — and at the very top of the market, the largest law firms cleared 12%-plus rate growth. Meanwhile, demand clocked in at 2.7%, nearly triple the industry’s long‑run average.

Clearly, these are not average conditions by any stretch. And yet, the LFFI score — a composite output of law firm financial performance — remained stubbornly ordinary.

So, what’s eating the gains? It turns out that the answer is multifold. For example, the report cites climbing overhead expenses, productivity that has slipped back into contraction after six months of gains, and a growing performance gap between the largest firms and everyone else — all joined forces to drag down the LFFI score.

On top of that, a new geopolitical variable — the ongoing war in Iran — weighs heavily, darkening the storm clouds further. Early indicators suggest the conflict is blunting both sides of demand at once, the report notes, freezing both the transactional M&A work that thrives on confidence and the counter-cyclical restructuring work that thrives on distress. When both the upside and downside stall simultaneously, strange results likely will follow.

The segments’ strategy split

Indeed, one of the clearest stories of Q1 is how sharply law firm segments are splitting apart. After years of moving largely in lockstep, pricing strategies diverged in Q1. Am Law 100 firms, for example, leaned hard into rate growth, while Midsize firms slowed their rate growth, marking the first deceleration in rate growth for any segment since 2021. Meanwhile, the Second Hundred held steady, neatly threading the middle.

This nuance matters. Large firms continued raising standard rates faster than worked rates, accepting deeper discounts to move the prices clients paid higher. Midsize firms did the opposite — allowing standard rates to lag while negotiated rates rose — signaling restraint. Midsize firms’ strategy may have been to capture price‑sensitive demand migrating down‑market; but in practice, it hasn’t worked. Midsize firm demand growth now trails the Am Law 200 average, expenses are accelerating faster than revenue, and productivity per lawyer is declining. As a result, profit growth for the segment is running at roughly half the pace of its Am Law peers.

Rain in the forecast?

Demand, meanwhile, still remains above historical norms, even as a few raindrops are starting to fall. While several practice areas contributed meaningfully, the mix of transactional and counter‑cyclical practices are growing at nearly the same pace, signaling not balance, but simultaneous deceleration. Add in tough year‑over‑year comparisons against early‑2025’s demand surge, and the growth picture going forward becomes more stormy.

As the report makes clear, the takeaway from Q1 is not that the market is in trouble, but rather that momentum is slipping under the surface. A score of 55 isn’t a storm warning siren; it is, however, an odd resting point for a market with inputs this strong. The question for the legal market moving forward is simple: Is this just a passing sprinkle — or the first sign of a heavier storm?

You can download

a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s “Q1 2026 Law Firm Financial Index” by filling out the form below:

Key takeaways:

• • • New Zealand legal market achieves revenue and profit growth — A new TRI report on the New Zealand law firm market shows firms rebounding strongly from the pandemic, with firm revenue and profits up impressively.

    • Transactional and counter-cyclical practice demand drives success — More than half of the legal demand for New Zealand law firms comes from transactional work, which rose of the past year; meanwhile, counter-cyclical practices saw even higher growth rates.

    • Managed expenses and increased partner utilisation boost profit margins — Despite rising expenses due to technology and knowledge management investments, New Zealand law firms maintained manageable costs and increased equity partner utilisation.

For New Zealand law firms, years of careful investment and strategic pandemic recovery have paid off. Today, strong demand has vaulted firm revenue growth above double digits, leading to profits not seen among New Zealand firms since the early days of the pandemic, according to a new report from the Thomson Reuters Institute (TRI) and data from TRI’s .

Jump to ↓

2026 Report on the State of the New Zealand Legal Market

Demand at New Zealand law firms rose more than 5% last year, following stagnant or decreasing growth rates between 2022 and 2024, according to TRI’s 2026 Report on the State of the New Zealand Legal Market. As a result, overall firm revenue rose by more than 10%, placing it back near pre-pandemic levels. Coupled with managed expense growth, New Zealand law firms saw their first double-digit profit growth since 2021, after declines in demand for transactional practice work scuttled profits in 2022 and 2023.

Overall, more than half of the legal demand for New Zealand law firms comes from transactional work such as corporate general and M&A practices; and indeed, demand for such work rose last year after seeing only modest growth or declines in the the years prior. However, the report shows that even more notable is the rise of demand in counter-cyclical practices such as disputes & litigation, insurance defense, and workplace relations. The growth rate of counter-cyclical demand topped that of transactional demand in the second quarter of last year and continued to separate itself throughout the remainder of the year.

At the same time, firms continued to enjoy steady rate growth, with their worked rate growth over this past year coming close to their average rate growth than was seen from 2022 to 2024.

Interestingly, this represents a different strategy by New Zealand firms, compared to those in the United States or Australia, to capture profits through other means while keeping their rate increases manageable. And indeed, while Australian and US firms have largely seen falling utilisation, New Zealand equity partners averaged more hours worked per month in 2025 than they did the year prior, which helped to drive higher revenues.

Meanwhile, total expenses ticked up slightly last year compared with 2024, with both direct expenses and indirect expenses rising. However, much of this growth in indirect expenses is largely due to increased investments in technology and knowledge management, an increasingly necessary expense in the age of AI.

As a result of the demand rebound and more manageable expenses, New Zealand law firms are seeing their revenues and profits soar.

Overall revenue more than doubled, percentagewise, in 2025, which in turn directly led to sky-high profits in 2025 that were almost triple what they were the year prior. Profit per equity partner also saw similar gains.

Overall, New Zealand law firms on average largely held steady with a profit margin around 43%, while some firms saw profit margins soar above 50%.

As the report shows, all of this represents a very positive financial picture for New Zealand law firms. The return of demand, steady rate growth, and managed expenses has provided firms a solid footing from which to grow further. And if New Zealand law firm leaders can build on those positive metrics, they look poised to take these gains and grow further in 2026.

You can download

a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s “2026 Report on the State of the New Zealand Legal Market” by filling out the form below:

You can read TRI’s latest “Inside the Shift” feature,��The 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 �������� (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 more��Inside the Shift feature articles��from the Thomson Reuters Institute here

Key insights:

• • • There’s an AI awareness gap — Most corporate legal professionals do not know whether their outside legal counsel are using AI in handling their client matters, leaving both law departments and their firms in a state of AI uncertainty.

    • A potential upcoming billing model shift — Efficiencies from AI usage could have a major impact on how many law firms bill matters; value-based billing may need to replace or supplement hourly billing for matters in which AI is used.

    • Transparency builds trust — Lack of visibility and ROI measurement could erode trust between law departments and their outside counsel. Dialogue and measurements can strengthen the firm/client relationship and create scenarios in which both sides can reap the benefits of AI usage.

While the use of AI is increasingly widespread for both corporate legal departments and their outside law firms, there is a considerable lack of dialogue and data-sharing between the two sides on usage, guidelines, and expectations regarding AI. This complicates efforts to maximize the benefits of using AI, and it also may be eroding trust between the two sides.

Significant gaps in visibility and measurement

The Thomson Reuters Institute’s (TRI’s) 2026 AI in Professional Services Report found major gaps in visibility and measurement between law firms and legal departments. The survey found that more than half of law firm respondents said their organizations are currently using or considering using GenAI. And more than half of corporate legal professionals surveyed said they feel that their outside legal firms should use AI on their matters.

However, more than two-thirds (68%) of corporate legal professionals admitted that they currently have no idea if their outside law firms are using AI or not.

In addition, neither side is effectively measuring whether or to what degree their use of AI is improving the delivery of legal services. Indeed, 85% of law firm respondents and 75% of corporate legal department respondents said their organizations are either not collecting ROI data on AI usage or are unsure if they are doing so.

Is your organization measuring the ROI of AI tools?

These visibility and measurement gaps make it difficult for both sides to plan how AI can and should be used in handling client matters. It also raises questions about how potential efficiencies from AI use will affect related factors such as how much firms charge for their services and how much clients are willing to pay. Half of legal professionals surveyed said they feel that AI is either a major threat or somewhat of a threat to billings and law firm revenues. Not surprisingly, the industry continues to wrestle with how to balance efficiency gains from AI against the limitations of the hourly billing model.

Concerns of corporate law departments

For corporate law departments, the lack of AI usage visibility and ROI measurement is producing a wide variety of responses, ranging from mild but growing concern all the way to outright suspicion about how law firms are using AI on their clients’ behalf. Law department respondents said that while they generally trust their outside counsel to make the right decisions regarding AI use and maintaining quality, most departments have not yet had conversations on those issues with their law firms, including how AI use will affect billing.

“Billing has remained the same as it did before,” noted one corporate legal department attorney. “So, either they are not using AI tools efficiently, or they are just doing double work.”

One corporate CLO was far more blunt in their assessment, especially given the lack of detailed discussions or data from firms: “I fear that firms will use AI to cut time, but continue to bill for the hypothetical amount of time a task would have taken without it. It’s dishonest, but so are many firms.”

One encouraging note is that, according to TRI’s 2025 Future of Professionals Report, 56% of law firm respondents said they are highly or moderately confident in their ability to articulate the value of AI to their clients. Despite law firms’ confidence in explaining the value of AI, however, the visibility gap illustrated in the 2026 AI in Professional Services Report indicates that law firms are not actually having those conversations with clients. Indeed, some corporate law department respondents suggested their outside counsel may be reluctant to discuss AI with them because of concerns about quality and accuracy. One even suggested that firms may feel threatened by AI.

More & better communication is needed

As difficult and complicated as discussions involving AI usage may be, they are also essential. Absent those discussions, trust between firms and clients may be eroding, potentially jeopardizing long-standing relationships.

Here are a few steps that both sides can take to build confidence around the use of AI:

For law firms —

• • Communicate with clients — Hold discussions with clients that allow firms to detail how AI is being or will be used in client matters. Solicit feedback from clients about in which instances they would accept (or even demand) AI usage on different parts of a matter.
  • Develop an AI billing strategy — Determine not only how AI usage is impacting billable hours, but also how that will interact with the firm’s billing and pricing strategy.
  • Demonstrate and articulate value — Be prepared to explain billings in detail and answer client questions in terms of not only time and rates, but of value to the client. This includes both the value that AI brings to client engagement, but also the value that the firm brings above and beyond what technology provides, such as more freed-up time for lawyers to pursue value-added work.

For corporate law departments —

• • Lead the conversation, if need be — About three-quarters of both law firm and legal department respondents said it is the firm’s responsibility to initiate discussions around AI usage. However, corporate law departments should not wait for their outside firms to start the conversation. Take the initiative and make sure firms’ delivery models and fee structures are clear regarding AI usage.
  • Set expectations — Provide guidelines, expectations, or mandates on how and when AI will be used in handling client matters. This includes outlining specific use cases, data security protocols, and the human-in-the-loop oversight mechanisms that are used to ensure accuracy.
  • Build an external-facing metrics program — Law departments need to accurately measure the efficiency gains their outside firms are achieving to ensure that they, as the client, are receiving a fair price for value received. Baselines can be established for how long various legal matters took historically and how much they cost. The baselines then can be compared against AI-enabled engagements to evaluate ROI and business impact. This also allows legal departments to more thoroughly explain those gains to their own stakeholders.

For both corporate law departments and their outside counsel, it is imperative to engage in thorough discussions and develop data that can inform better decision-making. Such dialogue and measurements can strengthen the firm/client relationship and create scenarios in which both sides can reap the benefits of AI use.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s��2026 AI in Professional Services Report��here

Key insights:

• • • Client expectations around AI have shifted from curiosity to accountability — Law firms are now being asked not just whether they use GenAI, but to prove how it delivers measurable cost savings on specific matters — a question most firms still cannot answer with hard data.

    • A growing contradiction defines firm/client relationships — As clients simultaneously demand AI adoption, require granular billing transparency, and in some cases refuse to pay for work performed with AI, they’re creating a pricing and value paradox with no clear resolution for their law firms.

    • The ROI challenge around AI is fundamentally a relationship problem — Driven by a widening gap between what clients expect to save and what firms can demonstrate, a rift has developed between clients and firms, which is compounded by the fact that few firms have a coherent GenAI strategy in place.

NEW YORK — opened with a keynote conversation featuring Mindy Kaling, the Emmy-nominated writer, producer, and Tony Award-winning playwright, who reflected on a career built around one enduring fascination: messy relationships. She talked about growing up wanting to write something like Sex and the City, only to end up helping to chronicle the internal politics of a Scranton, Pennsylvania paper company in The Office. She talked about her love of watching people navigate breakups and power struggles and then finding the comedy in it all.

If she’s looking for new material, the three standing-room-only panels that followed could keep her busy for seasons.

Not surprisingly, the relationship between clients and their law firms has always been complicated — bound by mutual need but strained by competing incentives. Now, that tension is starting to reach a rolling boil as many law firms can’t seem to agree on exactly how the gains of their use of AI tools, especially generative AI (GenAI), are going to be split, or even if they’re going to be split at all.

AI is no longer optional or experimental — and many clients simply assume it’s already in use.

Across three ��������-sponsored sessions during this week’s Legalweek event, that tension surfaced again and again — not as a future concern, but as a present reality. Today, clients are arriving at the table more informed, more demanding, and more willing to use AI themselves. Firms are investing heavily in AI, but they still are struggling to quantify returns in terms their clients will accept. With the rates that law firms charge increasing — averaging more than 7% growth in 2025, and likely to stay on that pace in 2026 — it sets up a collision with savings mandates that have yet to produce a shared framework for measurement. And underneath all of it, a fault line is building pressure — one that, as Ellen Hudock, GSK’s Chief of Staff Legal and Compliance, is not being resolved.

In 2026, GenAI has become the thing neither side can stop talking about, the thing both sides agree matters, and the thing that neither side can agree on how to handle.

This is not the story of an industry resisting change. Nearly everyone at Legalweek agreed that AI adoption is no longer optional. The harder questions, however, and the ones that echoed through every panel, every audience comment, and every hallway conversation is who benefits, how much, and who gets to decide.

Proving AI’s path to saving clients money

Three years ago, the client question was simple: Are you using AI, and would you use it on our matters? In 2026, that question has matured, and the new version is much harder to answer.

GSK’s Hudock described the shift bluntly during one panel. GSK is learning as much as it can from its outside law firms about how they’re deploying GenAI, she said, and are always looking to partner on new use cases. However, she noted that the conversation has moved well past curiosity. The pressure to deliver savings — internally and externally — is intense, and the questions have sharpened accordingly: What are you using? How are you using it? How does it generate savings?

Clearly, firms are hearing this message. Matthew Beekhuizen, Chief Pricing and Innovation Officer at Greenberg Traurig, noted that the pace of AI-driven change has accelerated sharply, particularly since October 2025. Clients who had previously said nothing about AI are now asking how it’s being used on their specific legal matters.

Indeed, AI is no longer optional or experimental — and many clients simply assume it’s already in use, said Mark Brennan, a partner at Hogan Lovells.

The trouble is that firms still can’t give clients the answer they most want to hear. When pressed on how much cost savings AI is actually achieving, the response from the firm side is often: We’re still gathering the data. Mitchell Kaplan, Managing Director of Zarwin Baum, acknowledged the industry is still in the anecdotal phase of measuring returns.

Sergey Polak, Director of Technology Innovation at Ropes & Gray, described the current state of ROI measurement as being based more on conventional wisdom rather than hard evidence. Hudock’s response to this was pointed: That’s exactly the situation in which clients want to partner. Supply the work, and let’s figure it out together.

The contradictions in the room

If the evolution in client expectations were the whole story, it would be manageable; however, the reality is messier than that, because clients are not speaking with one voice.

During another panel, Barclay Blair, Senior Managing Director of AI Innovation at DLA Piper, laid out the contradictions in sharp relief. Blair, who introduced himself as “the extremist on the panel,” is seeing clients who expect AI to be used and are asking how it will achieve specific savings targets. At the same time, many law firms are still receiving directives that feel lifted out of 2023, such as demands for warrants that models are unbiased, and declarations that firms cannot use AI without explicit permission. In 2026, both postures are arriving in the same inbox.

When pressed on how much cost savings AI is actually achieving, the response from the firm side is often: We’re still gathering the data.

The billing conversation captures this tension perfectly. Polak of Ropes & Gray noted that clients are beginning to ask for line-item transparency on invoices — was AI used on this task, and how much time or money did it save? Simultaneously, as Blair observed, other clients are issuing guidelines stating they won’t pay for certain services if performed by AI. This isn’t clients barring AI outright; rather, its clients demanding firms adopt AI, then using that very adoption as leverage to negotiate a decrease in costs. Not surprisingly, this becomes a self-reinforcing cycle with no obvious exit — at least, not for law firms.

Meanwhile, Zarwin Baum’s Kaplan raised a billing paradox that GenAI is making harder to ignore. As AI compresses work that once took hours into minutes, an itemized hourly bill increasingly tells a story that undersells the value delivered. His proposed answer: a return to the single line-item services rendered bill, which actually predated the billable hour. Kaplan then asked whether clients would actually accept it.

The advice to the law firms in the room from DLA Piper’s Blair was more blunt: Don’t wait for the client to set the terms. Lead the conversation about AI ROI and set the meeting. As Blair described, this is now the time to negotiate how value gets shared, while both sides are still figuring out the rules — not after one side has already written them.

The pressure hasn’t yet found a release valve

None of these tensions exist in isolation. They are symptoms of a structural mismatch between what clients need from the economics of legal AI and what firms are currently able to demonstrate — and the numbers suggest the legal industry is less prepared for this conversation than it thinks.

As ��������’ Steven Petrie pointed out, those law firms with a GenAI strategy are 3.9-times more likely to achieve ROI than those without one. Yet, only 22% of firms have such a strategy, Petrie said. That gap — between the firms that are thinking systematically about AI’s role in their business and those that aren’t — may turn out to matter less than the gap between what clients expect to save and what firms can show they’ve delivered.

The ROI question, in other words, is not just a measurement challenge, rather it’s a relationship challenge. And like all the best relationship drama, the tension doesn’t come from disagreement about whether the relationship matters. It comes from both sides wanting something slightly different from it — and neither being quite sure if both sides can get what they want.

If Mindy Kaling is still looking for complicated relationships to write about, she knows where to find them. This one’s going to need a few seasons to work itself out.

You can find more of here

Key takeaways:

• • • Worked rate momentum is slowing at a crucial time — Q4’s 7.1% growth in worked rates, while historically strong, is the smallest quarterly increase of 2025, indicating the rate‑driven profit engine may not be endlessly responsive as firms approach 2026.

    • Elasticity at its strongest and most vulnerable — Since late-2022, worked‑rate growth has translated almost one‑for‑one into law firm profitability, but even a slight softening in rate momentum now poses outsized risks as client budgets tighten.

    • History shows the system has limits — The 2021– ‘23 period demonstrated that rate growth alone cannot sustain profitability. Today’s Formula 1‑level responsiveness boosts gain quickly enough, but it can leave firms more exposed if the market changes direction.

Even as the winds shift, law firms still managed to sail into a strong finish in the fourth quarter of 2025; but beneath that smooth landing, the current was already changing direction. As the ��������® Institute’s Law Firm Financial Index (LFFI) edged down 2 points to 61 in Q4, a small but notable reversal after a full year of steady gains. The dip was driven largely by cooling demand growth, and while modest in absolute terms, it hints at a broader realignment that may be taking shape just as the industry steps into 2026.

Unsurprisingly considering its role in profitability, much of this shift comes down to worked rates and their relationship to profitability — a relationship that, in recent years, has been remarkably tight. Yet Q4 showed the first signs that the market may be entering a more complicated phase.

The F1 machine

In the previous decade, the rate-driven profit engine behaved more open, stable, predictable, and generally comfortable — albeit with one important limitation. It didn’t offer much acceleration. In fact, most of the higher‑velocity gains only began to appear as the industry approached the pandemic era. Then, when the pandemic hit and the system started to strain, with any acceleration felt weighed down and less responsive as firms navigated uneven pavement and constant adjustments.

Beginning in 2023, the industry shifted again — this time with the acceleration power of a Formula 1 race car. Rates became extraordinarily efficient in being translated into profitability. In recent quarters, profit rates have seen significant growth, so when firms pressed the accelerator, the needle moved quickly.

However, an F1 car demands precision. The faster it goes, the less margin there is for error. Today, the market is operating in a phase in which rate increases translate to profit gains at incredible speed.

A decade of history reveals a crucial pattern

The chart above broadens the lens to cover more than 10 years of data, bringing an important nuance into focus. The relationship between worked rates and profitability has not always been as linear — or as reliable — as it has in the most recent period. From Q1 2015 to Q4 2021, firms were driving at a manageable pace: For every 1% increase in worked rates, there was an approximate 0.7% growth in profit. Indeed, most of the historical data aligns with the intuition that higher rates bring higher profits.

However, between Q4 2021 and Q1 2023, the pattern bends in the opposite direction. Rate growth accelerated sharply, yet profitability declined. At first glance, it appears counterintuitive, but in racing terms, the track conditions had deteriorated sharply, making speed alone not just ineffective but actually risky. This was a period marked by elevated inflation, rapid expense growth, compensation escalations, and operational volatility across many law firms.

The logic was simple: Even aggressive rate increases couldn’t fully offset the pressure on margins. Moreover, in such a strained environment, attempts to raise worked rates by 1% led to a nearly 0.9% decrease in profits — almost a complete reversal. As a result, firms were recording some of their highest worked rate growth levels in nearly a decade, yet profitability on a rolling 12‑month basis dipped into negative territory and remained there for several quarters.

The goal of discussing this period isn’t to argue that rate increases backfired. They technically didn’t. Rather, the lesson is more subtle… and more relevant today: Rate growth is essential, but not omnipotent. It cannot solve every profitability challenge on its own.

The more recent elasticity story: Rates and profit move together

The LFFI’s softening in Q4 was influenced not only by decelerating demand growth, but also by a subtle easing of rate growth’s momentum. Worked rates grew 7.1% for the quarter — as we said, still strong, but the slowest quarterly increase of 2025. In a different era, this might have been a footnote; however, since the pandemic, rate growth has become the central pillar supporting law firm profitability. Where productivity and demand once balanced the equation, rates now serve as the primary driver. This means that any moderation, even a slight one, carries outsized significance.

The chart above illustrates this dynamic clearly. Without belaboring the mechanics, each point represents one quarter, with worked rate growth on one axis and profitability on the other, both on a rolling 12‑month basis. The clustering shows a close, consistent linkage over the last several years, showing that as rate growth pushed steadily upward, profitability almost invariably followed.

One takeaway stands out, however. Since late 2022, every 1% increase in worked rates has corresponded with roughly a 0.9% increase in profit growth, contrasting sharply with the patterns observed during the pandemic period. That kind of elasticity is rare in the history of the legal industry, and it helps explain why 2025 was such a profitable year across the market. Firms exceeded a two‑decade threshold in rate growth, achieving average increases near 7% and double‑digit gains at the top end.

Again, however, that relationship cuts both ways. If rate growth were to stall — or if clients were to push back more aggressively on rates — the profit engine that has powered firms through much of the last three years could lose momentum quickly. The early signs of that tension were already present in Q4, and they could intensify in 2026. Corporate budgets are under acute pressure, and counter‑cyclical demand often rises during economically turbulent periods, tightening constraints even further.

Put simply, the market is showing early signs that clients’ ability to absorb further rate increases may clash with firms’ dependence on that rate growth to sustain their profit growth. And the years of historical data serve as a reminder that this relationship isn’t unbreakable, and that even well‑calibrated systems can behave unpredictably when conditions shift.

The real question heading into 2026 is not whether firms can continue pressing the accelerator, but whether they can do so safely. At this Formula 1 speed, maintaining profitability isn’t just about adding power — it’s about navigating a track that is becoming narrower, more volatile, and far less forgiving.

You can download the Thomson Reuters Institute’s Q4 2025 Law Firm Financial Index here

Key findings:

• • • The market remains strong, but growth is difficult — Australian law firms are still posting solid demand and rate growth in the first half of FY 2026, yet the pace is becoming more challenging to sustain.

    • Australia is no longer a single legal market, but three distinct ones — The report identifies three clearly differentiated law firm segments: Large firms leading demand growth through aggressive investment; Big 8 firms emphasizing pricing power and cost discipline; and Midsize firms pursuing steadier, more moderate growth.

    • Early signals suggest GenAI is reshaping productivity and leverage — Changes in hours worked across seniority levels point to possible early impacts of GenAI; and while overall productivity is stable, non‑equity partners and associates are logging fewer hours, while senior associates and equity partners are working more.

The Australian legal market enters the back half of FY 2026 with strong topline numbers, but beneath the surface, the market is working harder to maintain its momentum. Firms are navigating slower rate growth, shifting demand patterns, and the early tremors of what may prove to be a generative AI-driven transformation.

Solid footing, harder-won gains

Australian law firms built an impressive track record over the post-pandemic era, and the first half of FY 2026 shows that run may not be over yet — although its character is changing. Demand growth of 4.8% year-to-date sits a full percentage point above the average quarterly pace since FY 2022, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute’s just-released 2026 Australia: Midyear Legal Market Update report. Worked rates, meanwhile, rose 4.7%, which is respectable, but a noticeable step down from the 5.4% average growth firms had enjoyed since FY 2022.

At the practice level, the picture is broadly encouraging. Both transactional and counter-cyclical practice groups are accelerating, with workplace relations leading all practices at 9.9% year-to-date growth and corporate general close behind at 7.7%. However, a potential warning sign lies in the divergence among each macro-category’s flagship practice: insolvency & restructuring is surging at 7.9%, while mergers & acquisitions sits in contraction at -2.1%. If dealmaking remains subdued while restructuring activity accelerates, transactional practices could face meaningful headwinds in the quarters ahead.

Three markets, not one

Perhaps the most significant finding in this year’s report is what the market-wide averages have been concealing. Last year’s Australia State of the Legal Market report highlighted growing competition between the Big 8 and a broader group of Large law firms that were challenging the Big 8’s dominance. This year, a refined three-segment framework reveals that the former Large category was actually masking two very different stories, between Large firms and a newly identified set of Midsize firms.

The newly delineated Large firms have emerged as the clear demand leaders, posting nearly 7% year-to-date growth — roughly double their peers — fueled by aggressive investment and expansion. The Big 8, by contrast, are leaning into pricing power and cost discipline, growing demand at a more measured 2.7%. And the Midsize cohort, at 2.4% demand growth, is charting a balanced, moderate course.

The profitability divergence is even more striking. Since FY 2022, the firms now classified as Large have grown profits per lawyer by 27.4%, while Midsize firms managed just 3.1% — much closer to the Big 8’s 7.1% than to their former stablemates. What previously appeared to be a broad-based challenge to the elite was, in reality, concentrated among a smaller group of high performers that were pulling the average upward.

Early signals of AI-driven change

The report also surfaces a potentially significant development in law firm productivity. While overall hours worked per month ticked up slightly for the average qualified fee earner, the gains are unevenly distributed. Non-equity partners recorded their third consecutive productivity decline, and junior and mid-level associates are also slightly down. Yet senior associates and equity partners are logging more hours, keeping overall numbers stable. One possible explanation is GenAI — if firms are deploying these tools most heavily on research, drafting, and document review tasks that traditionally filled junior and mid-level associate hours, this is precisely the pattern we would expect to see. While it’s too early to draw solid conclusions, the distribution of hours may represent an early sign of how AI is beginning to reshape the traditional leverage model.

There is also a note of caution from firms’ clients. �������� Market Insights data shows Australian general counsel growing more conservative in their spending outlook, with net spend anticipation for overall legal work dropping to 0 points. That means just as many GCs see their legal spend increasing as those that anticipating it decreasing.

Interestingly, international legal spend tells a different story — Australia-based GCs are increasingly looking outward, with the Asia-Pacific and Latin American regions emerging as areas of particular activity, while Europe has cooled. For Australian firms with cross-border ambitions, the short-term opportunity may lie to the global east and south rather than west.

Looking into the second half of the year

As the Australian legal market moves into the second half of FY 2026, the story is no longer one of uniform prosperity but rather, one of strategic differentiation. Demand remains healthy, profitability is solid, and expense discipline is improving; however, growth is no longer evenly distributed. The law firms that thrive in the quarters ahead will be those that understand which game they’re playing. In an increasingly segmented market, adaptability — not scale alone — will define success.

You can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s “2026 Australia: Midyear Legal Market Update” report by filling out the form below:

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 �������� 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