AI LEADERS
Results
Clients most focused on cost of service — firms must identify outcomes
Almost half of AI leaders say impact on price matters most, fifth see more focus on data security
Join Briefing AI Leaders
Get on the mailing list for our exclusive AI research, hear about dedicated roundtables for senior leaders like you making decisions about AI investment, adoption and planning in your peer firms, and be part of the AI Leaders community.
There is clear consensus that efficiencies through time saved completing a legal process are an important indicator of a successful genAI implementation — second only to improved client outcomes in some form (speed of delivery, deeper industry insight, business agility or growth enabled — value is of course ultimately in the eye of the receiver). A substantial number of leaders also clearly think it should be possible for less time spent on lower-value activity to lead to higher-quality work (87%) — although fewer cite improved risk management (71%) as even 'quite' an important outcome. The overall experience of legal talent at work is expected to be another rightful beneficiary of the efforts (82% describing retention as an indicator of success) — although whether time saved in contract review or drafting will add its weight to the ‘life’ side of a lawyer’s work-life balance in 2026 is another question.
Fewer appear to see more revenue growth opportunities opened up (74%), or bills eventually paid (76%), as comparably important — and over one in 10 aren’t convinced by the argument lawyers should spend much more of their valuable time on business development in future.
Claire Stripp, head of knowledge and learning at Browne Jacobson, says: “Transformation of how specific tasks, assignments and projects are tackled by teams is a more significant marker of a successful implementation than making what’s always been done ever more efficient. Firms can also perform activities that really weren’t practicable before genAI.”
Michael Kennedy, head of innovation and legal technology, R&D, at Addleshaw Goddard, says: “While efficiency is crucial, the broader impact on client outcomes and business enablement is what proves the real value. We’re also seeing that we can deliver on work that was previously not possible, or not realistic, for a law firm to do — largescale jobs that would have been cost-prohibitive that we can now deliver using a hybrid AI and human approach. This is a great success metric as it allows firms to unlock more revenue rather than just trying to increase margin on current work.”
48%
of leaders say clients apply most weight to the cost impact in the AI conversation
Nevertheless, in three years’ time 79% of leaders do expect lawyers to be playing a bigger part in client management, including cross-selling (71%), and listening for signals to changing client business needs, contexts and outlooks to facilitate it (68%). Three-quarters also envisage lawyers becoming more proactive at internal knowledge-sharing, which can result in improved client insight, experience and growth opportunities. Two-thirds say lawyers will be the ‘human in the loop’ of work that increasingly relies on an AI-powered contribution, and half (52%) that time can be fruitfully redeployed to strategic business planning and the associated horizon-scanning to understand likely changing challenges and impacts in store.
David Hymers, IT director at Wedlake Bell, says: “We see the role of the lawyer changing in the future. We need to continually adapt how we work, as improvements in technology bring new opportunities and develop new streams of work. We see the adoption of innovation, including genAI, as a key skill, and we encourage employees to embrace new technologies in their roles, client-facing work or internal business support.
“Time savings and improved work product are the two main benefits reported by our staff. However, efficiency alone isn’t enough — if used without care, time savings for one person can create extra work for someone else. We always try and take a human-centric approach when it comes to technology. Great tools should make life easier for people, enabling them to focus on the work they love and do best."
Almost three-quarters (74%) say their clients are now regularly asking them about the firm’s genAI position and policies before giving its business, and, perhaps inevitably, the factor most at play is clearly anticipated cost savings as they see lawyers ‘embracing’ efficiency gains. Under the hourly-rate model clients are likely to expect some fees to reduce in line with the time taken to produce results, and it is for firms to demonstrate the value they add to a deal or risk mitigation amounts to more. Firms will perhaps offer a range of options tied to the extent of technology involvement in a process, as well as focusing more attention on the spectrum of client outcomes already discussed in fee negotiations and structures. That being said, a fifth of leaders find clients expressing the most interest/concern in treatment of their data and any security implications.
Susan Ford, knowledge director at DAC Beachcroft, says: “Clients often ask how AI tools can improve operational efficiency, what cost savings those efficiencies deliver, and whether those savings can be passed on. Some clients take a conservative, risk-averse stance. They seek reassurance about oversight and safeguards against inaccurate outputs, and this can extend to contractual clauses restricting AI use or prohibiting it in sensitive contexts. At the other end of the spectrum, some view AI as a baseline capability. They expect suppliers to be fluent and to proactively demonstrate how it can enhance their outcomes. Some will seek co-development opportunities.”