|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Conversations around legal AI have entered a different phase.
Not long ago, the focus was on identifying practical use cases, selecting vendors and establishing governance frameworks. More recently, attention has shifted to trust, return on investment and the challenge of moving beyond isolated pilots. Those discussions continue, but many in-house legal teams have reached a different stage of maturity. AI is becoming part of how legal work gets done rather than another innovation initiative.
Deloitte’s latest global survey captures that transition. The adoption figures are significant, but the survey’s real value lies in what they imply. As AI becomes embedded in legal departments, it is beginning to influence how work is organised, how outside counsel is evaluated and what capabilities legal leaders will need to build over the coming years.
In that sense, Deloitte’s findings are less about the pace of AI adoption than the evolution of the legal department itself. The next phase of legal AI is likely to be shaped less by technology decisions than by leadership decisions.
Legal departments are moving from implementation to integration
Deloitte found that 61% of legal departments have reached the deployment stage, while only 2% report no AI adoption at all. Investment also continues to rise, with nearly four in five increasing AI spending and many already exploring agentic AI.
Viewed individually, those figures simply confirm that adoption continues to gather pace. Collectively, they suggest something more meaningful. AI is becoming part of the legal department’s operating model rather than another innovation project.
For legal leaders, the emphasis is shifting.
The question is no longer whether AI has a place within the department. Increasingly, the focus is on how legal work should evolve around it. Which workflows genuinely benefit from automation? Which tasks still demand human judgment? How should productivity be measured when technology can complete parts of legal work in a fraction of the time?
These are operational questions rather than technical ones. They require legal leaders to think about workflow design, legal operations, governance and performance alongside technology investment.
The survey also points to another important shift. As AI becomes part of the legal department’s infrastructure, competitive advantage is likely to come less from access to the technology itself and more from how effectively organisations integrate it into everyday decision-making.
AI is giving legal departments greater influence over external legal spend
One of the most interesting implications of Deloitte’s survey concerns the relationship between legal departments and outside counsel.
Much of the discussion around legal AI has focused on efficiency, but efficiency is only part of the story. As in-house teams develop their own AI capabilities, they also develop a better understanding of where technology genuinely creates value and where legal expertise remains indispensable.
Legal departments using AI every day develop a much clearer understanding of which legal tasks are repeatable, which remain genuinely complex and where human judgment continues to deliver the greatest value. That shared understanding inevitably changes conversations with outside counsel.
Deloitte’s finding that 85% of respondents expect AI to reshape law firm pricing reflects this broader shift. The significance is not simply that firms may move away from hourly billing. It is that clients increasingly understand the role AI plays in delivering legal work.
Pricing discussions are therefore becoming more sophisticated. Rather than asking whether firms use AI, legal departments are more likely to ask how technology changes the value they receive. If document review, legal research or contract analysis can be completed more efficiently, clients will increasingly expect those gains to be reflected in pricing models, staffing approaches or the overall delivery of legal services.
None of this diminishes the role of outside counsel.
It changes the basis on which external legal services are valued.
As legal departments become more sophisticated users of AI themselves, relationships with external firms are likely to become more transparent, commercially informed and strategically focused.
The boundary between in-house and external legal work is becoming more selective
The boundary between internal and external legal work has always shifted according to capability. AI expands what in-house teams can handle themselves, allowing legal departments to become more deliberate about where specialist external expertise creates the greatest value.
It would be simplistic to suggest AI will bring large volumes of work back inside legal departments. High-value litigation, complex transactions, regulatory investigations and specialist advisory work will continue to require external expertise.
The distinction is more nuanced.
As routine drafting, contract review, legal research and compliance activities become more efficient, legal departments gain greater flexibility over how legal work is allocated. Instead of asking whether work should remain in-house or be outsourced, legal leaders are increasingly able to ask where external expertise creates the greatest commercial return.
Routine matters may remain within the department because technology makes them easier to manage internally. Complex matters become stronger candidates for specialist external advice, allowing legal departments to deploy outside counsel where experience, judgment and sector expertise have the greatest impact.
The result is not simply more insourcing. It is a more strategic approach to buying legal services, with the legal department acting as the central coordinator of legal resources across the organisation.
The biggest challenge may be organisational rather than technological
One of the most revealing findings in Deloitte’s survey is the gap between technological progress and organisational change.
Almost every respondent expects technology and AI literacy to become increasingly valuable within legal teams, yet most organisations have not redesigned roles or career structures around AI.
The gap highlights a challenge many legal departments are only beginning to address.
Technology can automate parts of legal work, but it cannot determine how teams should evolve. Legal leaders must decide how junior lawyers develop practical judgment when routine work changes, how legal operations should adapt to AI-enabled workflows and which capabilities become most valuable as technology assumes responsibility for more repetitive tasks.
The implications extend well beyond technical proficiency.
As AI becomes embedded within legal departments, in-house counsel are likely to spend more time interpreting legal risk, advising business stakeholders, overseeing governance and validating AI-assisted outputs. At the same time, legal leaders are taking on broader responsibilities that include technology investment, vendor selection, operating model design and decisions about how internal capability and external legal expertise should work together.
Those responsibilities reflect a broader evolution of the legal department. AI may be becoming another component of legal infrastructure, but shaping its impact increasingly falls within the remit of legal leadership.
Deloitte’s latest survey suggests the next stage of legal AI will be shaped less by advances in the technology itself than by the decisions made inside legal departments. The organisations that gain the greatest advantage are likely to be those that rethink how legal work is organised, how external expertise is deployed and how in-house teams create value in an AI-enabled environment.
Source
