|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Legal teams are adopting artificial intelligence faster than they are changing the commercial models around it.
That is a key finding from Thomson Reuters Institute research, which suggests many firms now have plans for AI integration but remain less certain about how the technology will affect pricing, client relationships and long-term competitiveness.
The 2026 research draws on interviews with 116 law firm leaders and managing partners, as well as 2,527 lawyers identified by clients as stand-out performers. Nearly 80% of those lawyers said their practice had a clear plan for integrating AI.
Confidence drops when the focus moves from adoption to business value.
Only 46% strongly agreed that their practice area had a clear plan for AI integration. Just 25% strongly agreed that their firm had a plan for generating revenue from AI use. Slightly more than 10% strongly agreed that their practice area was well placed to succeed as AI becomes more common in legal work.
The gap matters because AI is moving from experimentation into daily operations. Law firms now need to decide how it changes legal work, how those changes are explained to clients and how gains in speed or efficiency should affect fees.
AI adoption is moving faster than commercial planning
The legal sector has moved beyond the early question of whether firms should test generative AI.
Separate Thomson Reuters research published in 2026 found that 41% of law firms were actively using generative AI, up from 28% in 2025. Yet only 22% reported having a visible AI strategy.
The figures suggest that use is growing faster than formal planning.
That can leave firms with a fragmented model. Individual lawyers may use AI to complete work faster while pricing, staffing and client communication remain largely unchanged.
The problem becomes clearer when AI reduces the time needed for routine legal work.
If a task that once took five hours can be completed in three, the firm must decide what happens to the saved time. It can reduce the fee, change the staffing model, increase margins or move toward pricing based more on value than hours worked.
Those are management decisions. They affect revenue, profitability and client expectations.
This is where many AI strategies will be tested. A firm can invest in software and training, but that investment may have limited commercial value if partners do not know how to apply the technology to matters or explain its impact to clients.
The Thomson Reuters findings suggest firms may need to treat AI implementation as a business model issue rather than a software rollout.
Partners could decide whether AI strategy reaches the client
Partners sit between firm-wide strategy and day-to-day legal delivery.
That makes their use of AI especially important.
Thomson Reuters found that partners who use AI every day across several types of work were nine times more likely than limited or non-users to report a major impact on efficiency and quality.
The finding points to a practical issue. Lawyers are more likely to see the value of AI when they use it regularly and understand where it works well.
Partners influence matter planning, delegation, staffing, pricing and client communication. If they do not use AI with confidence, a firm-wide strategy may have little effect on how legal services are delivered.
Training therefore needs to go beyond compliance.
Lawyers need clear guidance on which tools should be used for specific tasks, where human review is required and how AI-generated work should be checked for accuracy. They also need examples that reflect their practice areas.
The commercial case becomes easier to assess when lawyers can see how AI changes a real workflow.
A faster document review process may reduce junior hours. Research tools may shorten the time needed to build an initial case analysis. Drafting tools may help lawyers produce a first version of a document more quickly.
Each change creates a business decision.
The firm must decide whether to charge less, maintain the same fee, offer a fixed price or use the saved time for higher-value work.
Those choices need input from firm leadership, partners and client teams, not only technology staff.
Clients are starting to ask where the AI savings go
Client communication may become the next pressure point.
More than one-third of the stand-out lawyers surveyed by Thomson Reuters had discussed AI with fewer than 20% of their clients.
That suggests many client relationships still do not include regular discussions about how AI is changing legal delivery.
Clients are likely to ask more direct questions as adoption grows.
If AI makes legal work faster, will bills fall? Will fewer junior lawyers work on a matter? Will turnaround times improve? Will AI affect the quality of advice?
Law firms need clear answers.
There is a risk that clients view AI mainly as a reason for lower fees if firms focus on efficiency without explaining the effect on service quality, response times or legal outcomes.
A stronger approach is to connect technology use with a specific change in the work and explain the client benefit.
If AI shortens research time, the benefit may be a faster answer. If it reduces repetitive drafting, lawyers may be able to spend more time on judgment and strategy. If it lowers the cost of a routine task, that may support a different fee model.
The broader change is becoming clearer.
Legal AI adoption is no longer mainly about access to technology. Many firms already have tools, policies and pilot programs in place.
The harder task is connecting those investments to the way firms operate and make money.
The firms that benefit most may not be those with the largest technology budgets. They may be those that can turn AI use into measurable changes in pricing, staffing, service delivery and client value.
Source
