|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Wall Street banks are putting pressure on major law firms to cut fees as artificial intelligence reduces the time needed for routine legal work.
Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are among the banks questioning whether traditional legal bills still make sense when AI can speed up research, document review and other time-heavy tasks.
Citigroup is asking law firms competing for its business to explain how much money they are saving through AI. Morgan Stanley plans to increase competitive bidding and make greater use of alternative fee arrangements, including fixed fees. Goldman Sachs is also examining how AI-related efficiencies should be reflected in legal bills.
The pressure comes as legal rates continue to rise. Average associate rates have reached $798 an hour, up 33% since 2023. Partner rates have risen 29% over the same period.
For law firms, this raises a difficult question.
If AI allows lawyers to complete work in less time, should clients pay less? Or should firms keep more of the savings as a return on their investment in technology?
The answer could have lasting effects on the economics of Big Law.
AI is exposing a weakness in the billable-hour model
For decades, many large law firms have built their business around time.
Junior lawyers may spend hours reviewing documents, researching cases or preparing first drafts. Those hours are recorded and billed to clients. Partners oversee the work while firms earn revenue from the combined time of the legal team.
AI can reduce the amount of human time required for some of those tasks.
That creates a conflict within an hourly pricing model. A law firm that becomes more efficient may need fewer billable hours to complete the same job. If price remains closely linked to time, better productivity can mean lower revenue.
The issue is becoming harder to ignore as AI becomes more common in legal work.
PwC research found that more than half of the UK’s top 50 law firms were already seeing financial and productivity benefits from AI. Firms estimated that AI adoption could save an average of 16% of working hours.
Earlier PwC research found that almost 90% of the UK’s top 100 firms had implemented or tested generative AI tools. One-third believed at least 16% of existing chargeable work could be automated.
That does not mean clients will stop paying high rates for specialist legal advice.
Experienced lawyers still provide judgment, negotiation skills and accountability for decisions that AI cannot replace. Complex transactions and disputes may continue to support premium pricing.
The pressure is more likely to fall first on work where clients believe technology has reduced the amount of labor involved. That could include reviewing large document sets, conducting initial research, checking contracts and producing standard drafts.
Fixed fees offer one possible answer. If a client agrees to pay a set amount for an outcome, a law firm can use AI to complete the work faster and retain some of the savings.
For clients, however, that model will be attractive only if the agreed price also reflects lower delivery costs.
Corporate legal teams can now challenge how firms price AI
The balance of information between law firms and clients is also changing.
Corporate legal departments increasingly use AI themselves. That gives general counsel and procurement teams a better understanding of where the technology can save time.
Deloitte surveyed 121 senior legal leaders worldwide between April and May 2026. It found that 61% of legal departments were in AI deployment phases, while another 10% said AI was fully embedded in daily work. Only 2% reported no AI adoption, compared with 76% in 2024.
This changes the way legal bills are judged.
A corporate legal team using AI for research or document analysis may be less willing to accept large numbers of associate hours for similar tasks from an outside firm.
Citigroup’s move to ask firms to quantify AI savings takes that idea further. Clients can now ask not only whether a firm uses AI, but also what the technology has done to the cost of delivering the work.
That could make pricing transparency a bigger part of negotiations.
Morgan Stanley’s interest in competitive bidding may have a similar effect. When several firms compete on expertise and price, firms that can show lower delivery costs may have an advantage.
The same pressure could also encourage companies to keep more work inside their own legal departments if they believe AI has made certain tasks easier to manage internally.
The fight over AI savings could reshape law firm economics
Law firms are not entering this period from a weak financial position.
The Law Society’s 2026 Financial Benchmarking Survey found median fee income among participating firms rose 11.2%, the highest rate of growth in more than 15 years. Some 85% of firms reported year-over-year fee growth.
AI could support further profit growth if firms can use technology to serve more clients without increasing headcount at the same rate.
But those gains will depend partly on pricing.
If clients demand that every hour saved through AI leads to a matching reduction in fees, much of the financial benefit could move from law firms to their customers.
If firms move toward fixed, value-based or outcome-based fees, they may be able to retain more of those gains.
This is why the demands from Wall Street banks extend beyond a dispute over legal bills.
Large financial institutions are among the most sophisticated buyers of legal services. They have the purchasing power to challenge established pricing practices and the resources to measure how new technology affects work they once outsourced.
Other corporate clients are likely to watch closely.
The billable hour is unlikely to disappear quickly. Complex legal matters do not fit neatly into a single pricing model, and companies will continue to pay for expertise when the stakes are high.
But AI is making the relationship between time, cost and value harder to justify without explanation.
For Big Law, the next phase of AI adoption may be shaped as much by negotiations with clients as by the technology itself. The key question is who gets the financial benefit when legal work takes less time.
Source
