"As a former senior in-house counsel, I knew that outside counsel could be slow on the uptake. For years and years we tried to persuade outside counsel that there were benefits, not just to us, but to them, in changing their thoughts about billing and case staffing. Waste of time, whistling in the wind, stubborn and unwilling to change their ways. Now all these years later, it may be AI"
"Two-thirds are now using AI or a beta version. Over 90% (not a typo) say that efficiency is the top benefit of AI. Just about two-thirds say that in-house use of outside counsel will be reduced. About a quarter of in-housers say that they will be pushing for changes in billing arrangements. Now that I have your attention, how are outside firms going to respond to this challenge to the very existence of some firms? Most in-house counsel have pushed for years, if not decades,"
Two-thirds of in-house lawyers are using AI or beta versions, and over 90% identify efficiency as AI's primary benefit. Approximately two-thirds expect reduced reliance on outside counsel, and about a quarter plan to push for changes to billing arrangements. Longstanding resistance by outside counsel to billing and staffing reforms has persisted, but AI's speed and cost advantages threaten traditional billing models and client relationships. Historical billing excesses, such as charging for fax pages, provoked client pushback; similar disputes over how to bill AI-generated work and allocate value between client and firm are emerging.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]