Legal Technology Trends

Hot take: the #legalengineer is now the most critical role in the in-house legal department. Not the GC. Not the deputy. Not the head of legal ops. The person who sits at the intersection of legal process expertise, technology fluency, and change management and who can re-engineer how legal work gets done as AI reshapes what's possible is what separates the teams that will come out of this period ahead from the ones that will have a lot of expensive technology and not much to show for it. In-house legal is redesigning itself right now. What goes to outside counsel? What does AI handle? How do we staff? You can't answer those questions or execute on the answers without someone who can architect the new model. I've been in this space for over two decades. This is the role I'd prioritize above almost anything else right now. https://lnkd.in/gCy6tQr5

The data coming out of AI investment in legal is starting to tell a consistent story, and it is not the one being told in vendor presentations. According to PwC’s 29th Global CEO Survey across 4,454 respondents, 56% of companies have realised neither revenue gains nor cost reductions from AI investment. In the legal industry specifically, law firms increased technology spending by 9.7% in 2025, while nearly 60% of in-house counsel reported no noticeable savings from their outside counsel’s use of AI. Only 6% of firms pass efficiency gains to clients through reduced fees. 34% charge premium rates for AI-enhanced work. A METR study of experienced software developers found that those using AI actually completed tasks 19% slower than those working without it, while believing they were 20% faster. The verification, correction, and oversight that AI output requires is a real cost that productivity metrics consistently ignore. Workday’s research found that 37% of time supposedly saved by AI gets consumed reviewing and correcting AI-generated output. In legal work, where precision carries professional liability, those hidden costs are likely higher. The billing model tension is the sharpest part of this picture. AI can compress hours of associate work into minutes. Firms are simultaneously raising hourly rates. 90% of legal spending still flows through standard hourly arrangements. The efficiency gains exist, but they accrue to firm profitability rather than client value. In-house teams are noticing. 80% of in-house legal leaders in Axiom’s 2026 GC Survey plan to move certain firm work in-house or to alternative providers within 24 months. The piece draws a comparison to Estonia’s celebrated digital government programme, which grew IT spending and staffing rather than reducing them. The paper folder became a digital folder. The stamp became a digital stamp. Nothing substantive changed. Legal technology risks the same trajectory: familiar workflows wrapped in AI interfaces, with new licensing, integration, oversight, and compliance costs layered on top. The invoice, as the article puts it, lands on someone else’s desk.

What I’ve learned from teaching lawyers how to use AI. For over two years, I’ve been teaching legal teams how to use AI. AI adoption isn’t like past legal tech waves. Lawyers are more engaged, excited, and optimistic about AI than past legal tech solutions. Here are nine trends I'm seeing in AI adoption in legal teams: 1️⃣ Early adopters are driving change. Lawyers that already use AI in their daily lives are advocating for AI use, teaching and pushing their legal teams forward. 2️⃣ Hesitant lawyers tend fall into two camps. (1) Skeptics (rightly questioning the results) and (2) Cautious users (worried about how data is used, and/or inputting confidential information or personal data). 3️⃣ Most teams recognize they need training to use AI effectively. Adoption happens when lawyers find their own use case(s). That requires access to tools, training, and freedom to experiment. Until then, AI remains a novelty. 4️⃣ Keeping up is hard. Everyone feels the intensity of the pace of change. Even Ethan Mollick and Allie K. Miller acknowledge it's hard to keep up. Although I've been impressed with Kyle Bahr's articles and posts! 5️⃣ AI champions are emerging. More legal teams are designating AI champions, lawyers, legal ops pros, legal engineers, governance leads, or internal AI advocates to drive adoption within their teams and also across the company. You have a unique opportunity to become an AI expert and make an impact across entire organizations. (For example, I taught a CTO how to improve the instructions for a company GPT!) 6️⃣ Broad-purpose AI tools are hitting limitations. Legal teams who started with in-house OpenAI ChatGPT solutions and similar tools, like Copilot, are running into walls. They are beginning to see they need legal-specific AI solutions. One major challenge is articulating this need to their organization to justify additional budget for legal specific tools. 7️⃣ Understanding AI is a tool, not magic. More legal professionals now understand that AI won’t replace them. It’s here to make their work more efficient, not take over entirely. 8️⃣ Integration is the key to long-term adoption. The legal teams making the most progress are the ones experimenting and exploring how they can embed AI into daily workflows. These teams are moving beyond prompting, and building assistants and embedding AI tools into workflows. 9️⃣ Adoption isn’t fast. Discovering how AI can work for you and actually building solutions are two different exercises. Both require investment to see real returns. I'd love to know whether you are seeing the same trends? Or have you experienced some of these observations play out?

Most people still think law firms drive litigation. They’re wrong. A quiet revolution is underway in-house, and it's changing who drafts, drives, and defines litigation strategy. Here’s what we’re seeing: the future of litigation is being built internally. Not just managed. Not just overseen. Actually architected. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is an emerging trend and rapidly increasing practice across industries. And it’s not just big companies. Not just former litigators. Not just cost control. It’s about leverage. Speed. Control. And in the age of AI, it’s about owning the first draft and setting the tone from the start. Across dozens of interviews, one surprise stood out: Litigation is becoming a design discipline inside companies. What that looks like: In-house teams systematizing protocols, dispute workflows, and negotiation frameworks Legal professionals operating more like product managers than passive reviewers Modular playbooks powering scalable, strategic litigation execution We are seeing this trend grow. AI and automation aren't just saving hours. They're reshaping how litigation begins and who leads it. This raises the bar for everyone: If you're in-house, are you ready to lead, not just manage? If you're outside counsel, can you collaborate as a second draft, not a first? If you're building legal tech, are you designing for internal command centers? This shift is not hypothetical. It is happening. Not everywhere yet, but fast enough to demand attention. Grateful to my brilliant co-authors, Adam Rouse, Tamra Tyree Moore, Renee Meisel, and Kassi Burns, for collaboration to surface this shift in our new piece for CodeX, The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics. What are you seeing on the ground? -------- Olga V. Mack Building trust and creating new categories at the intersection of contract intelligence, commerce, and AI. Let’s shape the future together.

AI Won’t Replace Lawyers—But It Will Make In-House Counsels Unstoppable The legal industry is evolving—not because lawyers are being replaced, but because the power dynamics are shifting. While many debates focus on whether AI will replace lawyers (spoiler: it won’t), the real question is: Who benefits the most from AI in the legal ecosystem? In my view, the answer is clear: In-house Counsels. Here’s why: 1. AI as the Great Enabler AI automates routine tasks like contract reviews and legal research, freeing legal teams to focus on complex, strategic work. AI doesn’t replace lawyers; it amplifies their impact. 2. In-House Counsels as Strategic Leaders With AI-driven insights, General Counsels (GCs) influence corporate strategy, M&A decisions, ESG governance, and risk management.  Legal is no longer support—it’s a business driver at the boardroom level. 3. Less Dependency on Law Firms Routine legal work like due diligence, compliance checks, and contract analysis can now be handled more efficiently in-house with AI tools. Result? Law firms focus on specialized advisory, while in-house teams manage a broader scope independently. 4. Cost Efficiency Drives Change  AI reduces reliance on external counsel, enabling predictable legal budgets and cost optimization.  Legal shifts from a cost center to a value driver aligned with business growth. 5. The Growth of “AI-Augmented” Legal Teams  In-house teams are expanding with AI tools for contract management, compliance automation, and risk forecasting.  AI-powered teams: Smarter, not just bigger. 6. Law Firms Will Adapt, Not Disappear  This isn’t a doomsday scenario for law firms—it’s a wake-up call. Firms will pivot toward specialized advisory, complex litigation, cross-border matters, and areas where human expertise is irreplaceable. Law firms that embrace AI will thrive in this new landscape. The billable hour isn’t disappearing—it’s being redefined. 7. Data-Driven Decision Making  AI transforms legal data into insights, enabling GCs to make proactive decisions on compliance, governance, and risk.  From legal advisors to strategic enablers. 8. Ethical AI & Data Security In-house teams will lead on AI governance, data privacy, and ethical compliance, navigating frameworks like the EU AI Act. Not just using AI—regulating it. 9. Human Judgment Still Reigns AI handles data, but critical decisions rely on human judgment—ethics, negotiation, and strategic thinking.  The “what” can be automated—but the “why” still needs lawyers. 10. The Future is Hybrid: Tech + Talent The most successful legal teams will blend AI efficiency with human expertise.  It’s not AI vs. lawyers—it’s AI + lawyers. What’s Your Take? What’s the biggest AI-driven transformation you’ve experienced—or anticipate—in your legal team?  Let’s discuss in the comments! #LegalTech #InHouseCounsel #AIinLaw #LegalInnovation #CorporateGovernance #FutureOfWork #AIandLaw #DigitalTransformation #LegalStrategy #ArtificialIntelligence

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗖 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟲 (it's not what you think) In almost every GC search I've run this year, AI has come up. Not as hype, but as a practical tool for doing more with less. The change is happening in two places: how companies buy legal services and how in-house teams deliver them. 𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗹 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 More companies are testing providers that build AI into their delivery model. These AI-enabled firms can produce certain outputs in a fraction of the time, often at fixed or outcome-based prices. That gives GCs negotiating leverage if they can scope work precisely and define success in business terms. 𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻-𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 AI is helping lean teams deliver high-value counsel without ballooning headcount. I'm seeing in-house teams use it to: • Speed up contract review and redlining while keeping judgment calls in human hands • Monitor regulatory changes in real time across multiple jurisdictions • Automate compliance reporting and board-level metrics • Capture and organize institutional knowledge so advice isn't lost in email archives The result is more time for GCs and senior lawyers to focus on strategic decisions, stakeholder relationships, and risk framing (the parts of the job no model can replace). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁 When technology reduces the cost and time of routine legal work, the GC's focus moves toward orchestration: • Designing the right mix of internal capability, outside expertise, and technology • Leading change management in the department (AI adoption still requires process and culture work) • Helping the business understand when speed creates advantage and when caution is still essential 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 The GCs thriving in this environment aren't waiting for a mandate. They test AI-enabled solutions in low-risk areas, measure the impact, and use early wins to build CEO and board confidence. They see AI as a tool to redeploy people toward highest-value work rather than replacing them. The inflection point is coming where GCs will need to balance technology adoption with sound risk management. That balance may prove more valuable than pure technical fluency. Change is gradual but inevitable. The GCs who experiment now will be ready when stakeholders start asking why things can't be done faster and cheaper. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘐 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘊𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴.

In late 2024, I was speaking to one of Priori's investors, who is firmly embedded in the law firm, legal ops and legaltech ecosystem, about our 2025 sales and marketing strategy, and they said, "You know, Basha, I hear about outside counsel management a lot less frequently than I did a couple of years ago." That stopped me in my tracks since that's been one of Priori's key themes for quite a while now, and I decided to ask on all calls I had with in-house professionals -- from GCs to legal ops to practicing attorneys -- what their priorities are for 2025. What I heard both confirmed the observation that "outside counsel management" was not the # 1 issue on most priority lists, but "cost-savings" is (often) the top. It's an important distinction, and one I would urge outside counsel to take seriously, because while outside counsel management is part of the story, in-house teams are increasingly thinking about how to decrease their reliance on outside counsel in order to drive savings. Here are a few high-level notes from my conversations: ✒️ AI, AI, AI. In-house teams believe they can implement AI internally to insource workflows that are currently being sent out to outside counsel. They also want their outside counsel to be using best-in-class AI to drive value and cost-savings -- and think that law firms that aren't working furiously on their AI strategy are "delusional." ✒️ Training internal resources. As in-house teams believe they can use AI to drive efficiency, they also think that they can upskill their internal resources to do more. Forgive my rudimentary math, but given that the average in-house lawyer in the U.S. makes ~150k per year and the average Am Law 100 billing rate is ~$1k/hour, the value here is striking. (From my perch, this makes me extraordinarily bullish on flexible talent as a pillar of smart resourcing strategies, but that's a story for a different post.) ✒️ Fragmentation and geographic arbitrage. One downstream consequence of the first 2 points is that in-house leaders predict that they will be fragmenting legal transactions and litigation between firms, internal AI workflows, and ALSPs with a particular focus also on geographic arbitrage. They don't think firms will continue to own projects end-to-end in the same way they do today. Of course, many strategies do still revolve around outside counsel management -- RFPs, panel creation, convergence initiatives, bill review, data-driven rate review etc. -- and if the above trends do indeed come to fruition, these outside counsel management techniques will gain prevalence because in-house teams will have a stronger starting position because they are less reliant on outside counsel. 

A staggering 79% of all legal startup investments since 2024 have gone to companies betting big on AI. Why the AI obsession? For in-house legal teams, this isn’t just about flashy tech. It’s about escaping the never-ending cycle of contract reviews, compliance headaches, and document drudgery. Here’s how: 1/ AI is taking one for the team ↳Legal research that used to take hours? Done in minutes. NDAs clogging up your inbox? Automated. AI is tackling the soul-crushing, repetitive work, so legal teams can focus on strategy and negotiations. 2/ Compliance without the chaos ↳Regulations change constantly. AI tools now track updates in real-time, flagging risks before they become problems. No more “Oh no, did we miss a deadline?“. 3/ Contracts that practically write themselves ↳AI isn’t just reading contracts anymore, it’s drafting, analyzing, and even negotiating. Imagine an AI tool that highlights risk clauses, suggests edits, and ensures your contracts align with company policies. The result? Faster deals, fewer redlines, and no late-night panic edits. 4/ Legal strategy, powered by data ↳What if your legal team could predict contract disputes before they happen? AI-driven analytics help in-house teams spot trends, assess risks, and make smarter decisions, not just react to problems. 5/ Less firefighting, more business impact ↳Legal teams are no longer just approving deals, they’re driving them. With AI handling the grunt work, GCs and legal ops teams can move faster without being the “department of no.” Hold on. Before you panic. AI isn’t replacing lawyers, it’s just adding wheels to their shoes. For in-house teams already using AI: Be honest, would you ever go back? #legalindustry #inhouselawyers #inhouselegal #lawyerslife #legaltech

The lean legal team of the future does not look like a smaller version of the past. It is a fundamentally different model. It is not headcount reduction dressed up as strategy. Winning right now means building differently. They hire generalists with an operator mindset. Lawyers who can read a P&L, lead negotiations, and convert risk into business terms without a translator. They do not just support the business. They help run it. They deploy specialists with precision. Like special teams in football, they are not on every play. They show up for the moments that decide the game. Bet-the-company litigation. Cross-border regulatory risk. A privacy constraint standing between a product and a customer. Then they get out of the way. They build with technology instead of waiting for it. AI handles the first pass. Drafting. Summaries. Research. Competitive context. The expectation is more business self-service, not less. Lawyers focus on what cannot be automated. Judgment. Relationships. The call. And the role of the GC is shifting. Less time managing legal work. More time shaping decisions before they become legal problems. More time capturing opportunities that would have been lost. The pressure on legal budgets is real. The teams treating that pressure as a forcing function for reinvention are not just navigating it. They are increasing their impact. That is the opportunity in front of every in-house legal team right now. #InHouseCounsel #LegalOperations #GeneralCounsel #CLO #LegalTech #AIinLaw #LegalStrategy #FutureOfLaw #LegalLeadership #CorporateLaw

What happens when cost savings backfire? I spoke with a General Counsel who shared a creative way he is cutting outside counsel spend. His team now takes matters 90% of the way to completion, then hands them to outside counsel for the final 10% review. It is the reverse of how he used to work, where outside counsel would start the work and his team would finish it. On paper, the new model saves money. In reality, there is a catch. If the firm spots a major issue late in the process, the matter can unravel and those savings can disappear quickly. This is the balancing act GCs are facing. Law firm billing rates are rising at the fastest pace in nearly 20 years, up 7.4% in the past year alone. Top-tier firms have raised rates 8 to 9 percent annually for two straight years, with some elite partners charging $2,500 an hour or more. Meanwhile, 96% of GCs started 2024 with budget cuts. Over half saw reductions of 10 percent or more, and 80% expect a headcount freeze in the next 12 months. Demand is still climbing, with 75% of in-house teams facing more work but no ability to add staff. To adapt, GCs are: •Shifting more work in-house and reallocating budget away from the highest-cost firms •Expanding ALSP usage, with about a quarter of current users increasing spend •Enabling self-service tools for the business such as templates, tiered review processes and FAQs •Leveraging interim counsel to scale quickly at up to 50% less cost than law firm secondees •Using e-billing and analytics to track rates, staffing mixes and negotiate smarter deals It is not just about cutting spend. It is about re-engineering how work gets done while managing the risks that come with change. When you cannot hire, but must deliver more for less, how is your team adapting?