Key highlights:

• • • Three emerging business models, one unresolved tensionÌę— 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 proficiencyÌę— 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 getsÌępaid 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 highlights:

• • • Lawyers excel at semantic legal work while AI excels in syntactic tasks — Syntactic work (document generation, pattern recognition) is where AI excels, but semantic work involving exercising independent judgment, reflecting on consequences, and fulfilling fiduciary duties remains uniquely human.

    • Fiduciary duty as the core of legal relevance — What distinguishes lawyers isn’t justÌęwhatthey do, butÌęhow and whyÌęthey do it. The fiduciary relationship demands human understanding of context, balances competing interests, recognizes unstated concerns, and exercises discretion.

    • 5 hours to deepen or diminish — The five hours lawyers are expected to gain each week by using AI can either accelerate professional obsolescence or deepen lawyers’ relevance, depending on what they do with it.

This is the first of a two-part blog series that looks at how lawyers can keep their skills relevant in the age of AI

Lawyers expect to gain a full five hours per week of worktime due to the efficiency derived from AI use, according to the ¶¶ÒőłÉÄê 2025 Future of Professionals Report. Yet the fear of job loss among lawyers is rising, as those viewing AI as a threat or somewhat of a threat grew from to almost two-thirds (65%) of those surveyed, according to the Thomson Reuters Institute’s 2026 AI in Professional Services Report.

Many in the legal profession are asking how lawyers are uniquely valuable at a time when machines can process legal information faster and cheaper. The answer lies in understanding the difference between what AI does in processing legal information and what humans do in exercising legal judgment, says , Founding Director of the .

Defining 2 levels of legal work

Understanding what makes lawyers particularlyÌęmeaningfulÌęin this current AI moment requires distinguishing between two different levels of legal work in an environment in which AI-enabled information systems are compressing humanity and legal judgment into data points and draining away the storytelling and moral nuance that ground both. According to Lee, these different levels involve the syntactic and the semantic:

• • • Syntactic — Lawyers process information, generate documents, and recognize patterns at the syntactic level, meaning those tasks in which AI excels and delivers promised efficiency gains. “The danger is that we will use this efficiency merely to generate more syntactic volume,” Lee explains, adding that this will result in faster processing of more documents at greater speeds. “If we do that, we will have automated ourselves out of a profession.”
    • Semantic — The semantic aspect of lawyering highlights the irreducible skills of the legal practice, which include exercising independent legal judgment, reflecting on consequences, demonstrating care for clients, and fulfilling fiduciary duties.

This distinction between the semantic level is inherent within the practice of law definition, Lee says, pointing out that many jurisdictions distinguish between “providing legal information” (not practicing law) and “exercising independent legal judgment” (the essence of legal practice).

He also rightly contends that the existential risk facing lawyers is not in AI completing legal tasks, but rather the temptation to reduce lawyers’ role to verifying machine output and processing legal information. Conflating these two concepts is a challenge for the legal profession and requires increasing the appreciation for the craft of legal reasoning and judgment.

Making this more difficult is that the current information age complicates this picture by challenging society’s assumptions about reality, consciousness, and the moral meaning of human life — all at an exponential rate, Lee says. Similarly, AI and information systems threaten to reduce everything, including human beings and law itself, to processable data by stripping away the narratives and meanings that define humanity, he adds.

Semantic qualities of legal judgment

The question of what makes lawyers especially relevant in the AI era is mainly answered in how and why they do what they do, rather than in what they do. For example, Lee points to skills around executing their fiduciary duty and ensuring legitimacy and meaning as key characteristics of lawyers’ semantic qualities.

Fiduciary duty — When a client seeks legal counsel, it’s legal judgment — not information processing — that the client wants. Lawyers, as part of their fiduciary duty to their clients, demonstrate human and legal understanding of the unique context of each case and the consequences of various legal paths forward. This bond of trust between attorney and client demands reflection, consideration, care, and proper purpose.

The fiduciary duty of the lawyer to the client requires balancing competing interests, recognizing unstated concerns, and exercising discretion in ways that honor both the letter and spirit of the law. At the heart of this balance is legal reasoning and professional judgment, which often involves navigating the critical gap between legal rules as written and their meaningful application to human circumstances.

Legitimacy and meaning — Beyond the fiduciary of care exercised in individual client relationships, lawyers serve a broader purpose in their role to safeguard law’s connection to the narratives of justice and human dignity that legitimize its authority. Indeed, lawyers maintain the connection between law and its humanistic foundations, so that the narratives that give legal authority its legitimacy depend on this connection. “The artwork that one associates with the law (in law schools and courtrooms) connects actions and legal judgment of attorneys to the mythic meaning of justice, equality, and the rule of law,” Lee explains.

How to deepen appreciation for the special relevance of lawyers

The five hours that lawyers said they expect to gain each week through AI-driven efficiency represents a choice point for the profession. These hours can either accelerate lawyers’ obsolescence or deepen their relevance. To ensure the latter, Lee advises lawyers and legal institutions to examine ways to put those hours to good use by, for example:

Collaborating on apprenticeships — Bar associations, practicing lawyers, legal service providers, and law schools should consider apprenticeship models that teach professional norms and values through mentorship that allow law students to learn the craft of legal reasoning through guided practice.

Recommitting more fully to legal service — Law firms and in-house counsel must reclaim humanistic awareness as central to their professional identity. The efficiency gains from AI should be reinvested into semantic work, which include counseling clients, exercising moral judgment, and fulfilling fiduciary duties with greater care and reflection.

Improving legal education — Law schools must return to the humanistic formation of lawyers, echoing the vision of the pre-2007 , before economic pressures reduced legal education to producing commercially exploitable graduates. In addition, AI ethics must be integrated systemically across the curriculum into doctrinal courses rather than being confined to elective courses.

Looking ahead

The five hours gained through AI represent a defining choice for the legal profession. The special relevance of lawyers in the AI age lies precisely in the human components and semantics aspects of lawyering.

In the concluding part of this blog series, we look at how the legal profession needs to rethink how it trains lawyers in order to prevent AI from eroding legal judgment skills

Key takeaways:

• • • Structural change in firms — The traditional law firm pyramid, in which junior lawyers perform high-volume work at billable rates, is losing its foundation as AI compresses tasks that once took hours and clients increasingly bring more work in-house.

    • Finding new ways to train — AI-powered simulations are emerging as a concrete answer to the associate training problem, allowing new lawyers to build courtroom skills faster and fail safely behind closed doors.

    • The associate role isn’t dying, it’s being redefined — Those law firms that figure out the right mix of legal training, technological fluency, and management skills will have a significant edge over those that are still debating it.

NEW YORK —ÌęOn more than one occasion, I have written seriously and at length about the death of the billable hour. I’ve argued that alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) are the future, that the economic logic of hourly billing is irreconcilable with AI-driven productivity gains, and that the industry needs to prepare for a fundamentally different pricing model. I meant every word. I still do.

Yet, at last week’s one attendee pointed out they’ve been hearing about the death of billable hour since the 1990s. At this point, it’s less a prediction and more of a tradition. Indeed, Matthew Kohel, a partner at Saul Ewing, said despite the legal press coverage connecting AI to the billable hour’s demise that narrative is now entering its third or fourth decade. And Kohel said his firm simply isn’t seeing meaningful client-driven movement toward AFAs.

So let’s be honest: the billable hour is not dead, and in fact, it may not be even close to dead.

However, if you’re looking for something that is facing a genuine existential reckoning — something the legal industry whispered about in the early days of generative AI (GenAI) and is now discussing openly — Legalweek 2026 may have found it. It turns out the billable hour was never the thing in danger, rather it’s the person billing the hours.

It’s the associate.

The question nobody wanted to ask out loud

The future of the junior lawyer surfaced in virtually every breakout session across the three-days event, and while it may not be the point of inception for the question, it was certainly the moment this idea graduated from a half-whispered aside to main-stage conversation.

Moreover, the problem has grown more urgent since its inception in the early GenAI days, when the question was simply whether a firm would need fewer associates. Now, that question hasn’t gone away, but it’s been joined by harder ones concerning training, hiring, and legal and technical skills. For example, what if AI is already better than a junior associate at some of the tasks that defined the role in the past? And what happens if someone says it out loud?

Someone said it out loud.

If you’re looking for something that is facing a genuine existential reckoning, Legalweek 2026 may have found it. It turns out the billable hour was never the thing in danger, rather it’s the person billing the hours.ÌęIt’s the associate.

During a panel on Measuring What Matters, the conversation turned to client trust. Clients want to know: How can you be sure AI will catch everything? How do you trust it to find what matters across 5,000 pages of documents?

The response from the panel was direct, and it landed like a brick in the room: it’s 5,000 pages, and someone was reading those five thousand pages. That someone is an associate. If that associate — who, more often than not, is one of the least experienced lawyers in the building — is the one reading all those pages, why would you trust them to do it better than a machine?

While that question hung in the air during the panel, it does deserve to sit with you for a moment afterward. Because embedded in it is the uncomfortable arithmetic that drives the entire associate question. The traditional law firm pyramid is built on a base of junior lawyers performing high-volume, lower-complexity work such as document review, due diligence, first-pass research, and doing so at rates that generate revenue while the activity is simultaneously (in theory) training the next generation of partners. If AI can do that base-layer work faster, cheaper, and with accuracy that one panelist described as “beyond very good,” then the pyramid doesn’t just shrink. It loses its foundation.

Barclay Blair, Senior Managing Director of AI Innovation at DLA Piper, noted that tasks like due diligence on some types of financial contracts are already being compressed to two hours, down from 15 to 20 — with zero hours being a realistic possibility in the near future.

Further, as one attendee observed, clients increasingly are adopting AI internally, and they’re bringing work in-house that was previously sent to outside counsel. Clearly, the work that trained generations of associates isn’t just being automated — in some cases, it’s leaving the firm entirely.

Fewer reps, greater weight

Yet here is where it would be easy (and wrong) to write the doom-and-gloom version of the future, in which AI replaces associates, the pipeline collapses, nobody knows how to train lawyers anymore, civilization crumbles, etc. It’s a clean narrative, but it’s also not what Legalweek panels actually said.

Because alongside the anxiety, something else was happening. People were building answers.

In another panel, Developing the Future Lawyer, panelists spent an hour in the weeds of what associate training actually looks like when the old model breaks down — and the conversation was far more concrete than you might expect.

Panelist spent an hour in the weeds of what associate training actually looks like when the old model breaks down — and the conversation was far more concrete than you might expect.

Panelist Abdi Shayesteh, Founder and CEO of AltaClaro, laid out the core problem with precision, noting that there’s a growing gap in critical thinking among associates. Templates getting copy-pasted without relevance analysis, and there is a lack of knowing what you don’t know. And the traditional training methods such as videos, lectures, and passive learning, don’t fix it. Indeed, those outdated models may be making it worse. Shayesteh’s analogy was blunt: You don’t learn to swim by watching videos — you need to jump into the deep end.

His solution is AI-powered simulations. Not hypothetical ones, but working deposition simulations available today, with real-time AI feedback, in which associates can practice cross-examination, deal with opposing counsel objections, and build the muscle memory that used to require years of live experience.

Kate Orr, Managing Director of Practice Innovation at Orrick, picked up the thread with two observations that reframed the stakes. First, AI simulations allow associates to fail behind closed doors, a radical improvement over the old model, in which blowing it had real consequences because failure often happened directly in front of the partners Second, the tool isn’t just for juniors. Even experienced lawyers are using simulations to test different approaches, tweak personas, and sharpen arguments. Orrick’s own Supreme Court team had a lawyer use AI to review a draft brief and identify paragraphs that could be tighter.

Todd Heffner, Partner at Smith, Gambrell & Russell, said the real question isn’t whether associates will use AI, but rather whether it gets them to lead at trial in year 10 instead of year 20. Right now, most associates are lucky to see the inside of a courtroom in their first seven years, and even then, they spend most of their time back in the hotel prepping for the more experienced attorneys instead of arguing themselves. If simulations can compress that learning curve, the associate’s career doesn’t disappear, rather, it gets accelerated.

The dinosaur that adapted

During the Measuring What Matters panel, Mitchell Kaplan, Managing Director of Zarwin Baum, introduced himself with a memorable bit of self-deprecation: He’s a dinosaur — but one, he clarified, who understands how AI can revolutionize what he does.

Kaplan’s perspective threaded through both days of programming like a quiet counterweight to the anxiety. He’d seen this before — not AI specifically, but the fear of it. He watched the legal industry transition from physical libraries to digital research tools, and he watched attorneys adapt. And his message was consistent: the work changes, but the need for lawyers doesn’t disappear. Associates may be taking shortcuts, but they still need to read, still need to review, and still need to think.

They’re developing differently than his generation did, Kaplan said, but it’s the same way every generation develops differently from the one before it. And different doesn’t mean wrong.

The work changes, but the need for lawyers doesn’t disappear. Associates may be taking shortcuts, but they still need to read, still need to review, and still need to think.

It’s a perspective that found an unexpected echo in the Enterprise Alignment panel. Mark Brennan, a partner at Hogan Lovells, relayed a comment he heard at a previous AI conference: The next generation of entry-level jobs will be managers — because they’ll be managing agents and other tech tools. Brennan admitted he didn’t have all the answers on what that means for legal training, but the implication was clear. The associate role isn’t dying, instead, it’s being redefined. And the firms that figure out what that redefined role looks like, what mix of legal training, technological fluency, critical thinking, and management skills it requires, will have a significant advantage over those firms that are still debating it.

Another panelist, Andrew Medeiros, Managing Director of Innovation at Troutman Pepper Locke, made a prediction that felt like the sharpest version of this idea. He said that at some point, new lawyers are going to be doing simulated matters as a standard part of the development process. Eventually, there’s going to be a generation that walks in as new attorneys and finds themselves litigating right away.

That’s not the death of the associate. Rather, that’s the beginning of a different kind of associate — one who arrives at the courtroom sooner, with different preparation, carrying different tools.

The billable hour, for all the prophecies, refuses to die. The associate, it turns out, has no intention of dying either — just evolving. Mitchell Kaplan called himself a dinosaur — but Legalweek was full of dinosaurs, and every one of them was adapting and in that adaptation, thriving. The harder question is whether the firms that forged them will be brave enough to follow.

You can find more ofÌęour coverage of Legalweek eventsÌęłó±đ°ù±đ

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 ¶¶ÒőłÉÄê-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 ¶¶ÒőłÉÄê’ 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:

• • • Demand slowdown reverses LFFI gains — The LFFI’s Q4 2025 dip reflects a modest demand slowdown, marking a shift from rapid post‑pandemic rebound to a more stable, steady market.

    • Transactional practices plateaued while counter-cyclical regain momentum — Transactional practices leveled off while demand in the litigation, bankruptcy, and labor & employment practice areas accelerated, driven by rising disputes, regulatory pressure, and workforce complexities.

    • Clear opportunity for strategic realignment — Law firms may be able to shift their staffing toward growing counter‑cyclical areas, strengthening their pricing discipline and refining their recruiting processes.

After two consecutive quarters of improvements in the ¶¶ÒőłÉÄêÂź Institute’s Law Firm Financial Index (LFFI) score, the fourth quarter of 2025 marked a modest reversal in which it fell, albeit slightly to 61. The key driver behind this decline was a deceleration in demand that was meaningful enough to pull the overall score down and may signal that the market is moving into a more normalized rhythm — less snapback growth and more steady performance.

To understand what this means in practical terms, it helps to look beneath the headline numbers and examine not just what happened in Q4 2025, but also over the last two years. Then, a clear narrative emerges: Transactional work — M&A, corporate general, real estate, and tax — was powering the market in Q4 ’24 but largely plateaued in Q4 2025. Meanwhile counter-cyclical practices — litigation, bankruptcy, and labor & employment — regained momentum during the same timeframe.

Put differently, the practices that powered growth in the last year are fading as measured against their own baselines, while those practices that performed less strongly then are now starting to take the lead for the legal industry.

Practice level demand dynamics

By applying a magnifying glass to each transactional practice’s behavior over the past three quarters, one can identify a few important contrasts. The practice that stands out for its lowest growth in Q4 2025 is tax — and, in fact, across the final quarters of the last three years (even when it had a good performance in early 2025), that momentum didn’t translate to the end of the year. This indicates that tax has constantly posted the weakest demand growth, bottoming out at -0.9% in Q4 2023, when it was again the practice with the lowest growth. Even in the Q4 2024 — a stronger year for most practices — tax grew only 1.5%, well below both its transactional and counter-cyclical peers.

This persistent underperformance may reflect several factors, such as increased internalization of routine tax work by corporate tax departments, pricing pressure in highly standardized matter types, and slower deal flow in M&A reducing ancillary tax activity. Whatever the cause, tax’s muted trajectory has had a dampening effect on overall transactional momentum and has acted as a drag on top-level demand growth.

On the other side of the room, counter-cyclical practices strengthened in Q4 2025 after a softer Q4 2024, nearly reaching the same growth that they presented in Q4 2023. Collectively, these practices rose to around 3.2% in Q4 2025, compared to about 1.5% growth in Q4 2024. This represents a true rebound after an unusually strong 2023, which was likely caused by lingering pandemic-related effects and the period’s surge in inflation.

Litigation leads the pack

Litigation provides the clearest example of this resurgence. During the Q4 2025, litigation led with roughly 4.3% growth, compared to 2.4% in Q4 2024. Indeed, the practice closed 2025 with renewed momentum, making it the standout in performance among major practices.

Litigation’s acceleration in late-2025 suggests that court systems have fully normalized, backlogs have largely cleared (in relative terms), and organizations are encountering a more contested operating environment. Regulatory scrutiny, geopolitical risk, supply chain disputes, and workforce-related conflicts all contribute to a litigation profile that is less dependent on economic cycles and more tied to the complexity of today’s business environments.

By contrast, after bankruptcy demand growth surged to 6.4% growth at the height of the pandemic recovery in 2023, the practice area experienced a dramatic cooldown the following year, falling to 0.4% just 12 months later. However, bankruptcy recovered modestly to 2.8% in Q4 2025, although still far below the extraordinary levels seen during its previous spike.

Taken together, these patterns suggest that corporate clients may be contending with a broader set of pressures — regulatory instability, workforce management complexity, and the downstream effects of post-pandemic backlogs — that could continue to generate steady legal demand.

Counter-cyclical trends reflect opportunity, not just reactive demand

The upswing in demand growth for counter-cyclical practices is not necessarily a sign of economic turbulence, however. Indeed, it shows the market can be stable and still produce more litigation, it can be cautious and still require restructuring advice, and it can be steady and still demand intensive employment support. The fact that transactional demand continues at a solid, albeit slowing pace, shows that this is not necessarily the recession-boosted practices that are driving law firm performance.

In fact, in a market in which transactional demand has stabilized and disputes and compliance work is rising, many law firms can use the moment to better align their operating model with the practice areas in which momentum is building and by aligning with actual demand.

For example, as litigation, bankruptcy, and labor & employment areas see higher demand growth, a firm may benefit from adding capacity in those areas, improving staffing leverage, and preventing partner bottlenecks. Meanwhile, steady but flattened transactional demand could call for disciplined, pipeline‑based hiring.

The practices that powered growth in the last year are fading as measured against their own baselines, while those practices that performed less strongly then are now starting to take the lead for the legal industry.

In addition, lower demand for transactional practices can represent an opportunity for law firms to refine their recruitment processes, as recruiters can take the time to seek those candidates whose skill sets offer added value. Prioritizing the hiring of candidates who bring fresh ideas and technological capabilities to support the tech-driven evolution of legal services may be the push some law firms need to meet the expectations of clients that are increasingly demanding greater value for their dollars.

This does not mean transactional work should be deprioritized, however. Instead, firms should adopt a dual‑track strategy: Optimize and streamline transactional capacity for efficiency, while strategically expanding counter‑cyclical teams in the areas in which demand is accelerating.

Making the strategic choice

On the face of it, it seems that many law firms face a strategic choice between doubling down on counter‑cyclical practices or continuing to prioritize transactional work. Current demand performance suggests counter‑cyclical areas offer the clearer near‑term opportunity — they are growing, resilient, and driven by structural forces such as regulatory scrutiny, workforce disputes, geopolitical risk, and more complex compliance environments.

Further, this environment elevates the importance of pricing discipline. As demand normalizes, clients become more price‑sensitive and will expect efficiency and transparent staffing. Litigation and labor & employment may have more pricing power today, but disciplined pricing across all practices is critical for margin stability.

Indeed, the widening gap between transactional and counter‑cyclical practices signals a market in transition. The opportunity for firms lies in balancing these dynamics and aligning staffing, pricing, and operations to navigate uneven growth and capture value in a more complex legal environment.

You can download theÌęThomson Reuters Institute’s Q4 2025 Law Firm Financial IndexÌęhere

Key highlights:

• • • Universities face pressure over pedagogy— Academic institutions are adopting AI as a reputational marker that’s driven by market pressure rather than educational need, creating a risk for students who can work with AI but not independently of it.

    • Entry-level roles under threat— AI is being deployed most heavily to automate the grunt work of entry-level positions in which foundational professional skills are traditionally built through struggle and feedback.

    • K-shaped cognitive economy emerging— Experienced professionals with existing expertise are gaining efficiency from AI, while entry-level workers are losing access to skill-building experiences.

According to Harvard University’s Professional & Executive Development division, innovation is defined as a “process that guides businesses through developing products or services that deliver value to customers in new and novel ways.” Along this journey, professional judgement in decision-making is used numerous times to determine next steps at key stages.

Notably, the word technology is nowhere to be found in this definition — an absence , Assistant Professor of Learning Technologies at the University of Minnesota, has long found revealing. Instead, innovation is framed as creative problem-solving, contextual intelligence, and the ability to work across perspectives. Interestingly, Dr. Heinsfeld adds, none of these require constant automation. In fact, many of them are undermined by it.

However, AI adoption has the real potential to automate away the very experiences that build these capabilities from university lecture halls to corporate offices. With notable data already suggesting that , the risk that the current approaches to AI use in universities and companies are engineering away innovation and professional judgement skills is real, notes , Group Leader in AI Research at Harvard and NTT Research.

Indeed, some observers view AI as the largest unregulated cognitive engineering experiment in human history. Yet, unlike medical drugs that require years of approval and testing, AI systems are reshaping how millions of students think, learn, and make decisions without a comparable approval process or a shared framework for discussing any potential “side effects,” as Dr. Heinsfeld pointed out.

Most worrisome is that AI is being deployed most heavily to automate precisely the entry-level roles where foundational professional skills are built.

So, what happens when an entire generation of future employees learn to delegate judgment before they develop it? And what actions do universities and companies need to take now to avoid this reality?

Risks of universities adopting AI under pressure

For universities, AI “has become a reputational marker, and not adopting AI is framed as institutional risk, regardless of whether an educational case has been made or not,” says Dr. Heinsfeld, adding that this is being driven, in part, by market pressure rather than pedagogical need.

Already, companies can greatly influence universities as employers of new graduates; and as such, AI systems are currently being optimized for speed, agreeability, and accessibility to stimulate ongoing use. However, as Dr. Heinsfeld contends, as universities race to earn the label AI ready without a careful, cautious and detailed understanding of how it may impact students’ cognitive processes, they run the risk of damage to their reputations of pedagogical integrity.

In addition, the “data as truth” paradigm is a complicating factor, she says. Drawing on her research, Dr. Heinsfeld explains how data “is often framed as the idea of being a single source of truth based on the assumption that when collected and analyzed, it can reveal objective, indisputable facts about the world.” Indeed, this ubiquitous mindset across universities and corporations treats data — such as that used to train large and small language models — as objective and indisputable.

Yet this obscures critical decisions about what gets measured, whose perspectives are included, and what forms of knowledge are systematically excluded from AI systems. As Dr. Heinsfeld warns, when data becomes synonymous with truth, “knowledge is what is measurable and optimizable.” This narrows professional judgment to efficiency metrics rather than the interpretive depth, ethical reasoning, and cultural context that are essential for sound decision-making.

Judgment gap widens in workforce downstream

Under the current AI adoption approach, students could leave universities able to workÌęwithÌęAI but not independentlyÌęofÌęit, a distinction emphasized by Dr. Heinsfeld. Like calculators, AI works as a tool only when foundational skills for its use exist first. Without this, graduates enter the workforce with a critical judgment gap that compounds from their lives as students at college campuses to becoming employees working in corporations.

AI adoption has the real potential to automate away the very experiences that build these capabilities from university lecture halls to corporate offices.

Most worrisome is that AI is being deployed most heavily to automate precisely the entry-level roles where foundational professional skills are built, warns Dr. Tanaka. Indeed, this is exactly the type of grunt work that teaches judgment through struggle and feedback. Over time, overuse of AI will result in quality being sacrificed because critical evaluation skills have atrophied.

Looking into the future, Dr. Tanaka foresees a K-shaped economy of cognitive capacity. Experienced professionals with existing expertise and contextual judgment built through years of experience will gain increasing efficiency from AI. Entry-level workers, however, will lose access to the valuable experiences that build professional judgement. This gap widens between professionals who can independently accelerate their workflows using AI and those whose traditional tasks are merely displaced by it.

Intervention may be able to break the cycle

The pattern is not inevitable, as both Dr. Tanaka and Dr. Heinsfeld explain. Drawing on Dr. Heinsfeld’s emphasis on institutional agency, meaningful intervention will depend on conscious, intentional choices made at every level. Both experts share their guidance for how different organizations can manage this:

Academic institutions — Universities must first recognize that AI adoption is a decision rather than an inevitability and make educational need the North Star for decision-making around AI. In her analysis, Dr. Heinsfeld emphasizes that when vendors set defaults, they quietly redefine academic practice. Defaults shape what is made visible or invisible and what becomes normalized. In AI-driven environments, universities often lose control over how models are trained and updated, what data shapes outputs, how knowledge is filtered and ranked, and how student and faculty data circulate beyond institutional boundaries — especially if decision-making is left to vendors. As a result, the intellectual byproducts of teaching and learning increasingly become inputs into external systems that universities do not govern.

Private entities — For organizations, Dr. Tanaka calls for feedback loops and other mechanisms that will promote more open discussion about AI use without stigma. In addition, companies need to proactively redesign entry-level rolesÌęto ensure these positions continue to cultivate judgment and foundational skills in an AI-driven environment. Likewise, Dr. Tanaka suggests that companies explicitly provide feedback about cognitive trade-offs to employees, fostering an understanding of possible skill entrophy.

Employees — Similarly, individuals working for organizations bear much of the responsibility for making sure critical thinking is enhanced by AI. Indeed, strategic decisions about when to use AI while seeking to preserve cognitive capacity and professional judgement are key.

Looking ahead

In today’s increasingly AI-driven environment, a new paradigm is needed to combat the current operating assumption that optimization from AI is the sole path to progress. And because the current trajectory sacrifices human development for efficiency, the need for universities and companies to choose a different path is urgent — while they still have the judgment capacity to do so.

You can find out more about how organizations are managing their talent and training issues 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 ¶¶ÒőłÉÄêÂź 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

• • • EI is emerging as a critical strategic capability — Stronger emotional intelligence can enable law firm leaders to build trust, navigate complex relationships, and strengthen both internal collaboration and client engagement.

    • Culture is now the defining factor in retaining top talent — As professionals increasingly expect transparency, purpose, and human‑centered leadership rather than traditional top‑down structures, law firms need to adapt.

    • Successful lateral integration requires coordination — Firms need to provide consistent messaging and fulfill their commitments to ensure that new hires feel aligned, supported, and positioned to contribute meaningfully.

AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. — If you’ve spent any amount of time inside a law firm, you already know that the people stuff is often the hardest part of the job. Sure, the work is complex, the clients are demanding, and the deadlines are relentless — but navigating human dynamics? That’s where things get really interesting.

During the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recentÌę33rd Annual Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer ForumÌę(formerly theÌęMarketing Partner Forum), three panels zoomed in on law firm talent: how to attract it, how to integrate it, and how to keep it. And while the themes ranged from emotional intelligence to lateral hiring to long‑term culture building, one takeaway stood out loud and clear: Those law firms that want to succeed have to start thinking about talent as a strategic engine — not an administrative task.

EI is not just a soft skill, it’s a strategic power skill

Emotional intelligence (EI) is having something of a renaissance inside law firms, and frankly, it’s overdue. As several panelists emphasized, EI isn’t about being warm and fuzzy — it’s about , especially in a high‑pressure, fact‑driven environment like law.

Stronger EI, especially among firm leadership, will enhance everyone’s ability to perceive, understand, and manage their own emotions and relationships. Emotionally intelligent professionals are better able to motivate themselves, read social cues, and build stronger relationships. And because it requires being aware of emotions in oneself and others, it can positively impact internal collaboration and external client relationships.

You can find out more about next year’s Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer Forum 2027Ìęłó±đ°ù±đ

For example, one panelist explained, if your go‑to opener with clients is still, “How’s it going?”, don’t expect anything more insightful than a polite shrug. Lawyers should use intentional conversation starters and even simple prompts, such as sharing the “top 10 things clients say we can do better,” the panelist explained.

Of course, EI isn’t always easy for lawyers because they are trained to trust facts, not feelings. That means firm leaders often need to dig deeper especially when someone seems resistant. It’s crucial for law firm leaders to remember that EI isn’t emotional fluff. It’s how firms build trust, lead through uncertainty, and strengthen both internal teams and client relationships. It’s a differentiator, panelists said, and one that law firms can no longer treat as optional.

In retention, culture is the whole game

Indeed, so much around talent hinges on the workplace culture, and as another panel discussed, that it has become the linchpin for successful hiring and retention of top talent. Indeed, in today’s environment, even the best firms may have trouble hiring and keeping top talent in a market where expectations, especially after the pandemic, have changed dramatically.

“It’s just changed so much since the pandemic where people just did their jobs and were expected to do so,” said one panelist. “Now, they want to feel valued and want to feel like they are making a difference.”

Several panelists agreed, pointing out that top talent is harder to hire than ever, largely because client demands have increased and the talent pool hasn’t expanded at the same pace. However, culture is where firms either win or lose the long game, they concurred.

Today’s employees want to feel valued, engaged, and connected to meaningful work — not just completing tasks in the background. They want transparency, authenticity, and involvement in strategy, panelists said. “People need to want to be part of your team, they need to feel prized once they’re there,” said another panelist. “They want leaders who are human first, and executives second.”

While this cultural tightrope may seem daunting, when a firm gets it right, recruiting becomes significantly easier. People want to work in environments in which they can be themselves, questions are encouraged, and their participation actually shapes outcomes, another panelist explained. “Keeping great people isn’t about perks or ping‑pong,” they said. “It’s about trust, clarity, and connection.”

The strategy behind making lateral integration work

Another aspect of the talent discussion, lateral hiring, has become a cornerstone of modern law firm growth, according to another panel. But to be honest, several panelists argued, even firms that recruit great laterals often fail to integrate them properly.

This can be a critical failure, they added, because lateral integration isn’t a task — it’s a firmwide commitment. When done well, it accelerates growth; but when done poorly, it creates churn, skepticism, and reputational risk.

Panelists stressed that laterals need clear messaging from everyone in the firm about how they fit into the broader business strategy. That means offering them consistent narratives and articulated opportunities, as well as stories of client wins, proof points about firm strengths, and external endorsements — all of which can help build credibility, they said.

Further, laterals need structured opportunities to showcase their expertise — such as CLEs, webinars, client events, internal spotlights. “These aren’t just marketing activations,” one panelist noted. “They are culture‑building moments that signal, ‘You’re part of this team, and we want people to know what you bring.’â¶Ä

On-boarding laterals, especially lateral teams, often can be a fraught proposition, and ideally one person should coordinate the entire process on the firm’s behalf. Otherwise, the new partner ends up drowning in inconsistent communication and duplicate requests. “Nerves are very high during this time — worries about whether the lateral made the right choice, whether support staff is being accommodated, and, most critically, whether clients will come over too — and all that has to be managed,” a panelist said.

However, the most important thing firm leadership can do when it comes to laterals is to simply deliver on their promises. Few things sour a lateral’s experience faster than broken commitments, another panelist offered.

Overall, the thread throughout all these panels on talent challenges within law firms showed that law firms need to evolve not just how they manage work, but how they manage people. Whether leveraging EI to power leadership and motivate teams, unifying communication to drive successful lateral integration, or fostering a culture in which top talent wants to stick around, firms would be wise to invest in human‑centered strategies.

Indeed, the potential payoff is massive: More engaged teams, stronger client relationships, and a more resilient future. And for those firms that don’t make this shift? Well, talent always has other options.

You can read the fullÌęExecutive Summary of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s 33rd Annual Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer ForumÌęhere

Key takeaways:

• • • The training crisis is a category error — Fears about junior lawyer obsolescence assume AI will simply replace existing tasks rather than transform the nature of legal work itself.

    • New operational roles are emerging — Positions like AI Compliance Specialists and Legal Data Analysts represent transitional pathways that didn’t exist five years ago.

    • The transition requires patience — Firms that thoughtfully redesign junior workflows will develop talent pipelines that outcompete those firms that still are clinging to traditional models.

Welcome back my The AI Law Professor column. Last month,ÌęI examined how agentic AI is transforming lawyers from reactive firefighters into proactive strategic partners. This month, I’m tackling a question that keeps law students and junior lawyers awake at night: What happens to junior lawyer development when AI handles the foundational tasks that traditionally built legal expertise?

When people say, “AI will eliminate junior training,” they’re making a category error and confusing the specific tasks that junior lawyers perform today with the underlying purpose of having juniors at all.

Junior lawyer work has never been a timeless set of tasks. It’s a bundle of functions that firms needed to be done at a particular moment in the history of information. When legal knowledge lived in books, juniors found it and copied it. When knowledge moved into databases, juniors learned how to query it. When email replaced dictation and secretaries, juniors typed more and seniors reviewed more. The traditional workflow is just the current snapshot of a role that has been continuously changing over time.

The purpose of junior lawyers isn’t to suffer through busy work for character-building or misplaced professional hazing. Rather, it’s to i) expand capacity, ii) reduce risk through additional eyes, and iii) create a talent pipeline by giving novices progressively harder judgment calls to make under supervision.

Generative AI (GenAI) doesn’t remove that purpose — it forces us to rethink and redesign how we accomplish it.

The AI-accelerated apprenticeship

The most important shift isn’t that juniors will do less, rather it’s that juniors will do different work earlier — work that looks operational, technical, and strategic, because that’s where the bottlenecks move to when drafting and research become cheaper and easier to accomplish.

Today’s law firms should expect to see first- and second-year lawyers rotating through new AI-enabled roles, such as:

• • • AI compliance specialist — Not a software engineer, this is a lawyer who understands what an AI model is doing well enough to manage risk. In this role, they would help set usage policies, evaluate vendor claims, document audit trails, and ensure the firm’s AI use aligns with professional responsibility duties, such as confidentiality, competence, supervision, and candor.
    • Legal data analyst — This is a junior who can turn messy matter history into usable structure by tagging outcomes, mapping issues to fact patterns, building internal playbooks, and working with knowledge management to make firm experience retrievable, so that AI can draft with your institutional memory.
    • Knowledge operations curator — This person ensures the reliability of your data by updating clause libraries, flagging suspect precedent, harmonizing templates with new local rules, and maintaining the firm’s internal source of truth so the AI doesn’t confidently resurrect a brief from 2014 that cites a law that was nullified in 2019.
    • Vibe coder — Yes, this is a lawyer, because someone has to translate legal workflows into software prototypes and agentic processes. Juniors are often better positioned than senior lawyers to do this because they actually touch the steps in which friction lives.

These transitional operational roles serve a crucial function — they provide entry points for junior lawyers to develop expertise while the profession reorganizes around AI capabilities. They’re not permanent destinations, but rather, pathways toward the strategic roles that will define legal practice in the coming decade.

In this way, the junior becomes a hybrid of lawyer, analyst, builder, and quality controller. They become someone who understands both the legal reasoning and the system producing it. That is not a degradation of training; rather it is training with the boring parts stripped out and the responsibility to engage with interesting work earlier on poured in.

The transition won’t be instant

Of course, none of this will happen overnight. There will be a messy period in which firms use AI inconsistently, partners trust it too much or not at all, and juniors are asked to double-check outputs without being taught how to do that systematically. Some law firms will treat AI as a time-saver while keeping the old apprenticeship model intact, until they realize they’ve removed the work that used to teach judgment and replaced it with
 nothing.

To manage this better, law firms must redesign training programs, adjust compensation structures, and develop new metrics for evaluating junior performance. Law schools must rethink curricula that is built around skills that AI increasingly handles. Bar examiners must consider what competencies actually matter at a time when AI itself can pass the bar.

In this way, the junior becomes a hybrid of lawyer, analyst, builder, and quality controller. They become someone who understands both the legal reasoning and the system producing it.

The long-term path is clear: AI will make legal production faster and cheaper, and that efficiency will push lawyers toward higher-value work — strategy, prevention, client-centered design, and complex advocacy. Juniors won’t be trained by copying and pasting the past.

When AI can produce a first draft in minutes, someone must evaluate whether that draft actually serves the client’s objectives. When machine learning surfaces relevant precedents from thousands of cases, someone must assess which precedents matter for this particular argument before this particular judge.

Juniors will be trained by building and supervising systems that generate the first drafts of tomorrow. Indeed, the future of junior training isn’t less training. It’s less busy work that pretends to be training, and more deliberate apprenticeship in verification and judgment.

And for those law firms willing to redesign how juniors learn, that future looks not only efficient, but better — better for clients, for partners, and especially for the next generation of lawyers.

For further help getting started on your organization’s AI journey, seeÌę here

Jump to ↓

2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market

As the data underpinning the just-released 2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market — published jointly by the Thomson Reuters Institute and the Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law — makes clear, the industry is experiencing its own tectonic moment. Fundamental forces such as shifting client power, economic instability, and technological disruption are pushing some firms to extraordinary heights while leaving others on increasingly unstable ground.

This year’s report examines how the legal market’s current elevation came to be, why it may not last, and what firms can do now to prepare for the inevitable shift.

Key findings in the report

Some of the key findings discussed in this year’s report include:

• • • Unprecedented demand surge amid market redistribution — The US legal market experienced some of the strongest demand growth in more than a decade, driven in part by regulatory shifts and geoeconomic instability. Critically, smaller firms captured the lion’s share of growth as clients moved demand from the most expensive firms to lower-cost alternatives.
    • Intense expense growth — Technology spending and talent costs are rising rapidly, with firms aggressively investing in AI capabilities while simultaneously expanding headcount. This dual arms race is sustainable only so long as demand and rate growth can be maintained as well.
    • Structural business model conflict — The industry remains trapped between transformative technology and outdated billing structures. Despite heavy AI investments that will fundamentally alter how legal work is performed, 90% of legal dollars still flow through hourly billing arrangements that may no longer reflect the value delivered.
    • Deteriorating buyer sentiment — Many corporate general counsels (GCs) are signaling that they are considering significant spending pullbacks ahead, with Net Spend Anticipation dropping to levels not seen since the pandemic. Financial forecasts increasingly point to contraction by mid-2026.
    • Historical warning patterns — Today’s legal market dynamics (represented by booming demand amid instability, runaway expenses, and universal optimism) closely mirror the conditions that preceded previous industry downturns in 2007 and 2021.

As the report makes clear, the challenges ahead are significant. The same forces creating today’s peaks are simultaneously undermining the ground beneath them. The surge in demand stems not from economic health but from chaos — trade wars, regulatory upheaval, and geopolitical tensions — all while GCs face stagnant budgets and intensifying pressure to demonstrate value.

While much of this is outside firms’ control, however, their response to it is not. The report clearly shows that those firms that use the current boom to reinforce their footing by modernizing pricing models, strengthening client relationships, and deploying technology in ways that deliver measurable value rather than marketing gloss will be best positioned for what comes next.

As this year’s report illustrates, 2025 was less a summit than an inflection point. The firms that treat elevation as permanence may find, as countless mountain ranges have over geologic time, that height is not a promise — it’s a phase.

You can download

a full copy of “2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market,” published jointly by the Thomson Reuters Institute and the Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law, by filling out the form below: