Time’s Up: Will Law Firms Say Goodbye To Billable Hour In The (Gen)AI Era?

In our forthcoming Spring 2025 publication, “Fighting the Hypothetical: Why Law Firms Should Rethink the Billable Hour in the Generative AI Era,”[1] we hypothesize that Generative AI (GenAI) technology will change forever how legal services are delivered and will force law firms to re-engineer their legacy economic model. The legal industry stands at a critical inflection point, because GenAI now can automate many routine legal tasks that have been handled for decades by junior professionals at premium hourly rates. The GenAI phenomenon puts the much-maligned billable hour revenue model squarely in the crosshairs. As this model ceases to be the predominant way that law firms are compensated, legal professionals will need to develop new ways to demonstrate the value of their services that align with a modified revenue model. Though the imperative to adapt is clear, firms that try to implement a new strategy for the GenAI era without first analyzing their historical data and putting in place a data-driven strategy will risk making poorly informed decisions that could threaten their financial stability.

The Fundamental Challenge

The traditional pyramid model relies heavily on junior professionals handling routine, high-volume work at substantial hourly rates, consistently generating handsome profits per partner for the world’s largest law firms. However, the pyramid model faces an existential threat, because GenAI can perform many routine legal tasks with equal or superior accuracy in a fraction of the time. That time savings will leave clients and others[2] wondering why they should pay $500 per hour or more for a BigLaw associate to handle a task that can be automated and completed in minutes, not days.

Consider our hypothetical: When a corporate in-house lawyer needs to produce an everyday agreement (e.g., an NDA or a simple license agreement) or a routine court filing (e.g., a pro hac vice motion), they now face two radically different options. The traditional path involves calling a law firm partner, who assigns an associate to do the first draft, resulting in a $2,000 bill for approximately four hours of work—mainly research, drafting, and revision—at a weighted rate of $500 per hour. Option 2 involves a GenAI tool producing, in 20 seconds (at a miniscule fraction of a $20 monthly subscription), a commendable draft with accuracy rates approaching 90%. A more senior in-house lawyer can then easily edit and deliver the draft less than an hour after typing the initial GenAI prompt. GenAI for basic drafting saves considerable time and money (those are often the same thing in the legal industry), and an entirely acceptable work product was delivered without any costly back-and-forth between the inside counsel and an outside law firm. This dramatic efficiency gain threatens to eliminate substantial billable hours at law firms, particularly at the junior level where much of a law firm’s profitability is generated. This hypothetical is now beginning to become a reality, prompting several critical questions:

• What tasks/workstreams should we decline to handle because they are unprofitable?

• What tasks should be automated versus completed by humans?

• What is a reasonable human/technology task allocation of work input?

• How must we adjust our rate structure to account for the changed cost model?

• How must our workforce and personnel mix change for optimal profitability?

In a GenAI-enabled legal industry, law firm leaders must address these fundamental questions strategically. The consequences of ignoring this new reality for any law firm leader are likely to be disastrous. Equally perilous, however, is trying to address this tricky situation without fully understanding the scope, facts, or economics of this new legal industry economic paradigm. That’s the practical point of our piece.

The Critical Role of Historical Analysis

Before implementing a GenAI strategy, law firm leaders must develop a deep understanding of their exposure to the appurtenant economic risk through careful analysis of historical billing data. This analysis should focus on three key areas that will shape the firm’s transition to AI-augmented legal practice.

1. Task Classification and Workflow Analysis

A meaningful understanding of the current work distribution across a firm’s legal professionals begins with comprehensive task / timekeeper identification. Firms must examine their billing records to identify patterns in the types of work performed most frequently across different practice areas by different levels of legal professionals. This analysis should reveal not just what work is being done, but who typically handles different aspects of each of the sub-tasks (e.g., original drafting vs. editing vs. final review). For instance, this type of data analysis would likely illustrate that junior associates spend a significant portion of their time on document review, legal research, and initial draft preparation – precisely the tasks that are most vulnerable to AI automation.

Beyond simple task identification, firms need to understand the time input patterns in both routine and complex work. This analysis often reveals surprising insights into how professionals at different levels spend their time. Senior legal professionals, for example, might be spending more time than realized on routine tasks that could be automated, freeing them for higher-value work.

Where the same tasks or deliverables are handled by different professionals, it is critical to scrutinize the related workflows. Legal work often involves complex handoffs between different professionals, with junior work product feeding into senior-level analysis and strategy. Understanding the task dependencies and workflow progression is crucial for identifying where the presence or absence of GenAI automation might create bottlenecks or disruptions, or the serendipitous converse: potential accelerations in established workflows.

Firms must also examine areas that frequently require significant revision or rework. These patterns often indicate inefficiencies in current processes that could be addressed through GenAI implementation, but they might also highlight areas where human judgment and experience remain critically important. When identifying the legal tasks ripe for automation, firms should distinguish between routine low-value, low-risk routine work that can be readily automated and high-value work that requires specialized human expertise.  The task classification and workflow analysis may seem like a daunting task, but firms can classify tasks by using legal spend data analytics software tools, like those offered by Legal Decoder[3], which automatically categorize each time entry’s component parts by phase/task into a taxonomy based on area of law. Then the taxonomy permits deep analysis.  Without this necessary data-driven analysis, law firms simply engage in guesswork—the same type of guesswork that can come into play when a client asks, “how much will this cost?”  But there’s a better way with data categorization:

Tasks Suitable for Automation	Tasks Requiring Human Expertise
Document review and initial screening in due diligence	Complex strategic advice and counseling
Basic contract drafting from templates and citation checking	Crisis management and sensitive client communications
Legal research for straightforward questions	High-stakes negotiations
Document summarization and extraction of key terms	Novel legal theory development
Regulatory compliance checks	Regulatory strategy development
Drafting standard motions	Complex deal-structuring
Generating legal memoranda	Trial strategy and courtroom advocacy
Document categorization and organization	Interpretations of ambiguous legal precedent
Routine client questionnaires	Risk assessment in unprecedented situations
Day-to-day contracting (NDAs, leases/licenses, stock option agreements)	Building and maintaining client relationships

• Financial Impact Assessment

After the task classification and workflow analysis is completed, it becomes possible to build out a comparative economic model showing the financial impact and opportunities presented by GenAI technologies. A deep understanding of the levers pushing and pulling on these financial models is important, as those levers will inevitably reshape law firms’ financial structure, particularly where clients insist on using these tools in service delivery. The following analysis examines the quantitative impact on a mid-sized practice group, comparing traditional operations with a GenAI-augmented model. Without question, it is a simplified comparison of two financial models, but the core principles and outcomes underlying each are meant to be illustrative, comporting with principles underlying a more sophisticated financial analysis.

Consider a typical mid-sized practice group’s current state. In the traditional model, four partners billing 1,800 hours at $1,000 per hour, eight senior associates at $650 per hour, and twelve junior associates at $450 per hour generate approximately $29 million in total revenue. The traditional model is essentially a “business-as-usual” approach under a billable hour revenue model. The GenAI model incorporates the strategic insights unearthed through the “Task Classification and Workflow Analysis” with tasks and workflows altered and augmented as a result of GenAI usage in place of human input. In this regard, the GenAI model makes several reasonable assumptions: (a) a percentage of low-value billable hours will be displaced by GenAI; (b) headcount at the Junior Associate Level can be reduced as a result of GenAI usage for low-level tasks; (b) the hourly rate in the GenAI model can increase because more senior legal professionals now are handling only high-value work, thereby justifying the higher hourly rate; and (d) there are GenAI costs – both hard costs (licensing fees) and soft costs (training, change management, and so forth).

Category	Traditional Model	GenAI Model	Change
Partners
Number of Partners	4	4	No change
Hours per Partner	1,800	1,710	95%
Rate per Hour	$1,000	$1,500	150%
Revenue per Partner	$1,800,000	$2,565,000	143%
Total Partner Revenue	$7,200,000	$10,260,000	143%
Senior Associates
Number of Senior Associates	8	8	No change
Hours per Senior Associate	2,000	1,700	85%
Rate per Hour	$650	$975	No change
Revenue per Senior Associate	$1,300,000	$1,657,500	128%
Total Senior Associate Revenue	$10,400,000	$13,260,000	128%
Junior Associates
Number of Junior Associates	12	6	50%
Hours per Junior Associate	2,100	1,260	60%
Rate per Hour	$450	$675	150%
Revenue per Junior Associate	$945,000	$850,500	90%
Total Junior Associate Revenue	$11,340,000	$5,103,000	45%
Practice Group Totals
Total Revenue	$28,940,000	$28,623,000	99%
Associate Compensation Expense	$7,000,000	$4,900,000	70%
GenAI Cost and Expense	$0	$1,000,000	New Cost
All Other Non-Compensation Expenses[4]	$9,500,000	$9,500,000	No change
NET PROFIT	$12,440,000	$13,223,000	106%
NET PROFIT MARGIN	43.0%	46.2%	+3.2%

At a macro level, the table above shows that the financial model shifts positively with strategic GenAI implementation. Hourly rates at all levels should increase to reflect the enhanced value-add work completed by the more senior legal professionals, but there would be a concomitant reduction in hours and headcount as routine tasks are automated. These changes ripple through the entire financial structure of the group. Although overall revenue modestly decreases, the composition of that revenue shifts significantly toward higher-value work, resulting in a more profitable organization. A paradigm shift to the financial model is predicated on a data-driven task classification and workflow analysis, followed by an ongoing monitoring of the analysis to maintain profitability while adapting to new service delivery models. Recent reports show that significant changes to legal personnel strategies are already happening, accompanied by higher rates.[5]

Legal Professional Impact Analysis

Partner Level Evolution

The partner tier demonstrates remarkable resilience in the face of technological transformation, with strategic adjustments enhancing both efficiency and value delivery. Partners experience a modest 5% reduction in billable hours, primarily through the automation of routine oversight functions. This reduction, however, is more than offset by a 50% increase in hourly rates, reflecting the enhanced value that the partners can deliver in the GenAI-enabled environment. Partners now will focus more intensively on strategic counseling by leveraging GenAI-driven work product to provide sophisticated guidance on complex legal matters. Their capacity for complex matter supervision expands significantly as routine tasks are streamlined, allowing them to manage larger portfolios more effectively and originate additional business. Perhaps most important, partners can be more involved in developing innovative legal solutions that combine traditional legal expertise with AI-enabled capabilities, creating new value propositions for clients.

Senior Associate Adaptation

The senior associate level undergoes a nuanced transformation that preserves headcount while fundamentally altering work patterns. These practitioners remain essential to the firm’s operation, but we imagine that their role shifts significantly toward quality control and supervision. Senior associates become the critical bridge between AI-generated work product and final deliverables, ensuring maintenance of the firm’s high standards while leveraging new technological capabilities. Although senior associates experience a 15% reduction in billable hours, their work becomes more sophisticated and valuable, thereby justifying a 50% higher hourly rate. Their time shifts away from routine reviews toward more strategic activities. They take on enhanced responsibilities (often non-billable) in training and supervising junior staff in the effective use of AI tools, while managing increasingly complex matter workflows. Client relationship development becomes a bigger part of their role, as they help clients understand and benefit from the firm’s enhanced capabilities.

Junior Associate Transformation

The most profound changes manifest at the junior associate level, where the impact of GenAI creates a fundamental restructuring of both headcount and work patterns. The 50% reduction in junior associate positions reflects the extensive automation of tasks that traditionally formed the foundation of junior associate work. We don’t foresee the elimination of the junior ranks altogether because of the need for law firm continuity and support; however, there will be a repurposing, which junior legal professional likely will embrace. No longer will junior legal professionals be subjected to the monotony of document review and adaptation of templates and legal forms into deliverables. Indeed, routine document review, basic legal research, and initial drafting of standard documents can easily transition to AI systems, requiring fewer but more technically skilled junior attorneys.

The remaining junior associates experience a 40% reduction in billable hours per matter, but their work becomes more intellectually engaging and valuable to the firm.  Associate happiness and professional gratification should increase. Document processing accelerates dramatically through AI assistance, while research capabilities expand through sophisticated natural language processing tools. Rather than spending hours on grunt work, junior associates will focus on refining AI-generated content and handling the more complex aspects of each matter that require human judgment and creativity. The streamlined review processes allow them to handle a larger number of matters simultaneously, developing broader experience more rapidly than in the traditional model.

Ancillary Effects of GenAI Adaptation

The transition to GenAI requires a comprehensive strategic response across multiple dimensions. Firms must fundamentally reimagine their service delivery model while maintaining profitability during the transition. This transformation presents opportunities to develop new revenue streams through AI-enabled service packages that leverage increased processing capacity, rapid response capabilities and self-service options. Forward-thinking firms are already positioning themselves to their clients for things like eDiscovery, offering process optimization, and other advisory services that extend beyond traditional legal counsel.

Cost management becomes particularly crucial during this transition. The reduction in junior staff headcount, while potentially challenging from a cultural perspective, offers significant cost savings. This shift also creates opportunities to rethink office space requirements, as automated processes and remote work capabilities reduce the need for traditional physical infrastructure.[6] The implementation of automated administrative functions and streamlined workflow processes further contributes to operational efficiency and cost reduction.

The elusive concept of “value” represents perhaps the most nuanced aspect of the legal industry’s strategic response to the GenAI threat. Firms must balance the efficiency gains from GenAI against client expectations for cost savings. This balance can be achieved through innovative pricing models that benefit both the firm and its clients. Premium pricing for ultra-strategic services, gainsharing arrangements, outcome-dependent pricing, and rapid services delivery premiums should become more prevalent in the GenAI era. Also, volume-based pricing models will be more attractive, as firms can handle significantly larger workloads with the same personnel and infrastructure. Technology-enabled fixed fee arrangements can provide predictability for clients while allowing firms to capture the value of their technology investments. Whatever the structure, the emergence of GenAI will allow for, or perhaps mandate, engagements with more creative, client-friendly revenue models.

• Strategic Resource Reallocation

Understanding historical work patterns via timekeeping data enables firms to make informed decisions to maximize revenue.  But that same analysis informs headcount needs and resource allocation in the GenAI era as well. With the benefit of technology-enabled task classification and workflow analysis of billing data, law firms can identify which practice areas face the greatest disruption from AI automation and how that disruption affects resource allocation, headcount needs, and workflow. Aspects of certain practice areas, such as due diligence in transactional work and document review-heavy litigation, may require significant restructuring. Other areas that involve complex advisory work, like regulatory advice or tax structuring, might need only minimal adjustments to personnel, resources, or workflow.

Firms must develop more concrete plans for resource reallocation, because legal professionals will be working differently in the future. Professionals whose current roles face significant automation should be retrained and redirected toward higher-value work that leverages their legal knowledge in new ways. Some legal professionals can transition into new roles managing and optimizing GenAI systems and the workflow generated by them. Still others might focus on developing deeper subject-matter expertise in areas resistant to automation.

The Dangers of Flying Blind

Many firms are trying to capitalize on GenAI solutions without first mapping their current operations, creating several serious risks that threaten both operational efficiency and long-term profitability.

In the initial instance, firm mustn’t take shortcuts when it comes to the task classification and workflow analysis. This analysis captures and quantifies vital information, sets a baseline, and can be measured and remeasured over time. After all, it is impossible to manage what you cannot measure. This step makes all the difference between success and failure.

The second major risk involves misaligned automation, where firms invest in AI solutions for tasks that aren’t actually the best candidates for automation. This misalignment can disrupt efficient workflows while failing to address the areas where AI could provide the greatest benefit.  An informed task classification and workflow analysis negates this risk.

A third critical risk involves overlooked dependencies in legal workflows. Without a thorough understanding of how different tasks and professionals interact, firms may implement automation that disrupts critical quality control mechanisms or creates bottlenecks in service delivery. These disruptions can damage both client relationships and work product quality.

Resource mismanagement represents another significant risk. Without clearly identifying which professionals will be most affected by AI automation, firms cannot effectively plan for retraining and reallocation of their talent. This can demoralize and under-utilize the skills of professionals who are inclined towards sophisticated work. Mismanagement also leads to both understaffing in critical areas, talent and proficiency gaps, and retention problems as professionals become uncertain about their future roles.

In the end, all risks and the return on investment calculation point back to the fact that firms implementing AI without proper baseline analysis can’t accurately measure their return on investment. Without clear metrics for current performance, it becomes impossible to quantify the benefits of AI implementation or identify areas where the technology isn’t delivering expected results.

Required Actions for Success

Success in the GenAI era will require fundamental changes in how law firms approach pricing, resource allocation, and service delivery. Change is complex and normally unwelcomed, particularly in the case of the legal industry. But change strikes us as inevitable here. Quite simply, the traditional hourly billing model must evolve into more sophisticated approaches that capture value rather than simply time spent. These new pricing models should share efficiency gains with clients while still rewarding the expertise and judgment that remain uniquely human contributions. Pricing models must also create greater predictability for both firms and clients, moving away from the uncertainty of purely time-based billing.

Service delivery must also evolve significantly. Firms need to standardize routine tasks to take full advantage of AI capabilities while maintaining mechanisms for integrating human expertise where it adds the most value. This requires new quality control mechanisms and often means significantly accelerated delivery timelines, as AI reduces the time required for many tasks.

As with any organizational change, success depends upon a structured approach that involves thorough strategic analysis, stakeholder buy-in, careful implementation and execution, and conscientious monitoring. Firms that are new to data-driven analysis should leverage knowledgeable, data-savvy external resources to facilitate the initiative.

With the right data analytics tools, the initial analysis phase should take six to eight weeks of a comprehensive review of historical billing data to understand current work patterns and revenue generation. The strategy development phase, which usually takes about a month, focuses on modeling the potential impact of GenAI implementation across different practice areas and work types. This modeling includes developing recommendations for workflow redesign, planning for resource reallocation, and creating new pricing models that reflect the changed economics of AI-augmented legal work. The implementation planning phase then addresses the practical aspects of transformation, including systemically implementing AI solutions, developing comprehensive training programs for professionals at all levels, creating clear client communication strategies about changes in service delivery, and establishing robust frameworks for monitoring performance and results. Development of new service lines should proceed based on market opportunities identified during the early phases. The implementation period establishes the foundation for the firm’s long-term competitive position in a technology-enabled legal services market.

After initial implementation, the next phase should center on evaluation and refinement, using careful analysis of pilot program results, with particular attention to both quantitative metrics and qualitative feedback from attorneys and clients. Pricing models require iterative refinement based on actual usage patterns and client response. Technology adoption should expand beyond the pilot groups, incorporating lessons learned and addressing implementation challenges identified in the initial phase.

The Path Forward

As with most of our works of authorship, we tend to make intrepid predictions. In this case, our predictions are not particularly complex. Law firms face three possible responses to this disruption, each with significantly different implications for their future success.

The first option – resisting change and maintaining traditional staffing and billing models – leads inevitably to declining profitability and increasing client pressure as competitors adopt more efficient approaches.

The second option – making only incremental adjustments while hoping to preserve as much of the current model as possible – merely delays the inevitable while potentially putting firms at a competitive disadvantage.

The third path – proactively embracing transformation by developing new business models that combine human expertise with technological efficiency – offers a sustainable way forward. Firms that successfully navigate this transition will emerge stronger, with more sustainable profit margins and greater competitive advantages. They will be better positioned to attract and retain top talent, as professionals seek firms that offer clear paths forward in the AI era. Most important, they will be able to deliver improved client satisfaction through more efficient, responsive service delivery.

Conclusion

The AI revolution in legal services demands a data-driven response. The future of legal services has arrived. Though the short-term challenges are significant, firms that use data to guide their transformation can create sustainable competitive advantages. The key is to move quickly but thoughtfully, using analytics to inform each step of the journey. Understanding historical workflows and billing patterns is crucial for identifying which aspects of practice face AI disruption and how to transform these challenges into opportunities. Success requires immediate action to embrace change while maintaining their commitment to excellence in legal service delivery—using AI to augment, rather than replace, human expertise.

---

[1]               Nancy B. Rapoport and Joseph R. Tiano, Jr., Fighting the Hypothetical: Why Law Firms Should Rethink the Billable Hour in the Generative AI Era (December 31, 2024). 20 Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts ____ (forthcoming Spring 2025) (currently available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5080449).

[2]               Roy Strom, Law Firms’ AI Nightmare Is Fewer Billed Hours and Lower Profits, BLOOMBERG L. (May 16, 2024, 2:00 AM), available at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/law-firms-ai-nightmare-is-fewer-billed-hours-and-lower-profits.

[3]               See http://www.legaldecoder.com.

[4]                      With the reduction in headcount, there will also be concomitant reductions in related expenses like allocated administrative overhead, office space, allocated technology, and training.

[5]               Debra Cassens Weiss, Bad News for Associates? Report Finds Law Firms Are Shifting to New ‘Talent Model’ for Hiring, A.B.A. J. (Jan. 9, 2025, 3:30 PM CST). Available at https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/law-firms-reduced-the-pace-of-associate-hiring-shifting-to-new-talent-model-report-says (“One reason for the big growth in rates may be that law firms are focusing less on new associates and more on experienced lateral lawyers.”).

[6]                      We suspect that the ongoing debate regarding remote working versus return to the office will be influenced by the capabilities of GenAI and resource adjustments.

---

The post Time’s Up: Will Law Firms Say Goodbye To Billable Hour In The (Gen)AI Era? appeared first on Above the Law.

In our forthcoming Spring 2025 publication, “Fighting the Hypothetical: Why Law Firms Should Rethink the Billable Hour in the Generative AI Era,”[1] we hypothesize that Generative AI (GenAI) technology will change forever how legal services are delivered and will force law firms to re-engineer their legacy economic model. The legal industry stands at a critical inflection point, because GenAI now can automate many routine legal tasks that have been handled for decades by junior professionals at premium hourly rates. The GenAI phenomenon puts the much-maligned billable hour revenue model squarely in the crosshairs. As this model ceases to be the predominant way that law firms are compensated, legal professionals will need to develop new ways to demonstrate the value of their services that align with a modified revenue model. Though the imperative to adapt is clear, firms that try to implement a new strategy for the GenAI era without first analyzing their historical data and putting in place a data-driven strategy will risk making poorly informed decisions that could threaten their financial stability.

The Fundamental Challenge

The traditional pyramid model relies heavily on junior professionals handling routine, high-volume work at substantial hourly rates, consistently generating handsome profits per partner for the world’s largest law firms. However, the pyramid model faces an existential threat, because GenAI can perform many routine legal tasks with equal or superior accuracy in a fraction of the time. That time savings will leave clients and others[2] wondering why they should pay $500 per hour or more for a BigLaw associate to handle a task that can be automated and completed in minutes, not days.

Consider our hypothetical: When a corporate in-house lawyer needs to produce an everyday agreement (e.g., an NDA or a simple license agreement) or a routine court filing (e.g., a pro hac vice motion), they now face two radically different options. The traditional path involves calling a law firm partner, who assigns an associate to do the first draft, resulting in a $2,000 bill for approximately four hours of work—mainly research, drafting, and revision—at a weighted rate of $500 per hour. Option 2 involves a GenAI tool producing, in 20 seconds (at a miniscule fraction of a $20 monthly subscription), a commendable draft with accuracy rates approaching 90%. A more senior in-house lawyer can then easily edit and deliver the draft less than an hour after typing the initial GenAI prompt. GenAI for basic drafting saves considerable time and money (those are often the same thing in the legal industry), and an entirely acceptable work product was delivered without any costly back-and-forth between the inside counsel and an outside law firm. This dramatic efficiency gain threatens to eliminate substantial billable hours at law firms, particularly at the junior level where much of a law firm’s profitability is generated. This hypothetical is now beginning to become a reality, prompting several critical questions:

• What tasks/workstreams should we decline to handle because they are unprofitable?

• What tasks should be automated versus completed by humans?

• What is a reasonable human/technology task allocation of work input?

• How must we adjust our rate structure to account for the changed cost model?

• How must our workforce and personnel mix change for optimal profitability?

In a GenAI-enabled legal industry, law firm leaders must address these fundamental questions strategically. The consequences of ignoring this new reality for any law firm leader are likely to be disastrous. Equally perilous, however, is trying to address this tricky situation without fully understanding the scope, facts, or economics of this new legal industry economic paradigm. That’s the practical point of our piece.

The Critical Role of Historical Analysis

Before implementing a GenAI strategy, law firm leaders must develop a deep understanding of their exposure to the appurtenant economic risk through careful analysis of historical billing data. This analysis should focus on three key areas that will shape the firm’s transition to AI-augmented legal practice.

1. Task Classification and Workflow Analysis

A meaningful understanding of the current work distribution across a firm’s legal professionals begins with comprehensive task / timekeeper identification. Firms must examine their billing records to identify patterns in the types of work performed most frequently across different practice areas by different levels of legal professionals. This analysis should reveal not just what work is being done, but who typically handles different aspects of each of the sub-tasks (e.g., original drafting vs. editing vs. final review). For instance, this type of data analysis would likely illustrate that junior associates spend a significant portion of their time on document review, legal research, and initial draft preparation – precisely the tasks that are most vulnerable to AI automation.

Beyond simple task identification, firms need to understand the time input patterns in both routine and complex work. This analysis often reveals surprising insights into how professionals at different levels spend their time. Senior legal professionals, for example, might be spending more time than realized on routine tasks that could be automated, freeing them for higher-value work.

Where the same tasks or deliverables are handled by different professionals, it is critical to scrutinize the related workflows. Legal work often involves complex handoffs between different professionals, with junior work product feeding into senior-level analysis and strategy. Understanding the task dependencies and workflow progression is crucial for identifying where the presence or absence of GenAI automation might create bottlenecks or disruptions, or the serendipitous converse: potential accelerations in established workflows.

Firms must also examine areas that frequently require significant revision or rework. These patterns often indicate inefficiencies in current processes that could be addressed through GenAI implementation, but they might also highlight areas where human judgment and experience remain critically important. When identifying the legal tasks ripe for automation, firms should distinguish between routine low-value, low-risk routine work that can be readily automated and high-value work that requires specialized human expertise.  The task classification and workflow analysis may seem like a daunting task, but firms can classify tasks by using legal spend data analytics software tools, like those offered by Legal Decoder[3], which automatically categorize each time entry’s component parts by phase/task into a taxonomy based on area of law. Then the taxonomy permits deep analysis.  Without this necessary data-driven analysis, law firms simply engage in guesswork—the same type of guesswork that can come into play when a client asks, “how much will this cost?”  But there’s a better way with data categorization:

Tasks Suitable for Automation	Tasks Requiring Human Expertise
Document review and initial screening in due diligence	Complex strategic advice and counseling
Basic contract drafting from templates and citation checking	Crisis management and sensitive client communications
Legal research for straightforward questions	High-stakes negotiations
Document summarization and extraction of key terms	Novel legal theory development
Regulatory compliance checks	Regulatory strategy development
Drafting standard motions	Complex deal-structuring
Generating legal memoranda	Trial strategy and courtroom advocacy
Document categorization and organization	Interpretations of ambiguous legal precedent
Routine client questionnaires	Risk assessment in unprecedented situations
Day-to-day contracting (NDAs, leases/licenses, stock option agreements)	Building and maintaining client relationships

• Financial Impact Assessment

After the task classification and workflow analysis is completed, it becomes possible to build out a comparative economic model showing the financial impact and opportunities presented by GenAI technologies. A deep understanding of the levers pushing and pulling on these financial models is important, as those levers will inevitably reshape law firms’ financial structure, particularly where clients insist on using these tools in service delivery. The following analysis examines the quantitative impact on a mid-sized practice group, comparing traditional operations with a GenAI-augmented model. Without question, it is a simplified comparison of two financial models, but the core principles and outcomes underlying each are meant to be illustrative, comporting with principles underlying a more sophisticated financial analysis.

Consider a typical mid-sized practice group’s current state. In the traditional model, four partners billing 1,800 hours at $1,000 per hour, eight senior associates at $650 per hour, and twelve junior associates at $450 per hour generate approximately $29 million in total revenue. The traditional model is essentially a “business-as-usual” approach under a billable hour revenue model. The GenAI model incorporates the strategic insights unearthed through the “Task Classification and Workflow Analysis” with tasks and workflows altered and augmented as a result of GenAI usage in place of human input. In this regard, the GenAI model makes several reasonable assumptions: (a) a percentage of low-value billable hours will be displaced by GenAI; (b) headcount at the Junior Associate Level can be reduced as a result of GenAI usage for low-level tasks; (b) the hourly rate in the GenAI model can increase because more senior legal professionals now are handling only high-value work, thereby justifying the higher hourly rate; and (d) there are GenAI costs – both hard costs (licensing fees) and soft costs (training, change management, and so forth).

Category	Traditional Model	GenAI Model	Change
Partners
Number of Partners	4	4	No change
Hours per Partner	1,800	1,710	95%
Rate per Hour	$1,000	$1,500	150%
Revenue per Partner	$1,800,000	$2,565,000	143%
Total Partner Revenue	$7,200,000	$10,260,000	143%
Senior Associates
Number of Senior Associates	8	8	No change
Hours per Senior Associate	2,000	1,700	85%
Rate per Hour	$650	$975	No change
Revenue per Senior Associate	$1,300,000	$1,657,500	128%
Total Senior Associate Revenue	$10,400,000	$13,260,000	128%
Junior Associates
Number of Junior Associates	12	6	50%
Hours per Junior Associate	2,100	1,260	60%
Rate per Hour	$450	$675	150%
Revenue per Junior Associate	$945,000	$850,500	90%
Total Junior Associate Revenue	$11,340,000	$5,103,000	45%
Practice Group Totals
Total Revenue	$28,940,000	$28,623,000	99%
Associate Compensation Expense	$7,000,000	$4,900,000	70%
GenAI Cost and Expense	$0	$1,000,000	New Cost
All Other Non-Compensation Expenses[4]	$9,500,000	$9,500,000	No change
NET PROFIT	$12,440,000	$13,223,000	106%
NET PROFIT MARGIN	43.0%	46.2%	+3.2%

At a macro level, the table above shows that the financial model shifts positively with strategic GenAI implementation. Hourly rates at all levels should increase to reflect the enhanced value-add work completed by the more senior legal professionals, but there would be a concomitant reduction in hours and headcount as routine tasks are automated. These changes ripple through the entire financial structure of the group. Although overall revenue modestly decreases, the composition of that revenue shifts significantly toward higher-value work, resulting in a more profitable organization. A paradigm shift to the financial model is predicated on a data-driven task classification and workflow analysis, followed by an ongoing monitoring of the analysis to maintain profitability while adapting to new service delivery models. Recent reports show that significant changes to legal personnel strategies are already happening, accompanied by higher rates.[5]

Legal Professional Impact Analysis

Partner Level Evolution

The partner tier demonstrates remarkable resilience in the face of technological transformation, with strategic adjustments enhancing both efficiency and value delivery. Partners experience a modest 5% reduction in billable hours, primarily through the automation of routine oversight functions. This reduction, however, is more than offset by a 50% increase in hourly rates, reflecting the enhanced value that the partners can deliver in the GenAI-enabled environment. Partners now will focus more intensively on strategic counseling by leveraging GenAI-driven work product to provide sophisticated guidance on complex legal matters. Their capacity for complex matter supervision expands significantly as routine tasks are streamlined, allowing them to manage larger portfolios more effectively and originate additional business. Perhaps most important, partners can be more involved in developing innovative legal solutions that combine traditional legal expertise with AI-enabled capabilities, creating new value propositions for clients.

Senior Associate Adaptation

The senior associate level undergoes a nuanced transformation that preserves headcount while fundamentally altering work patterns. These practitioners remain essential to the firm’s operation, but we imagine that their role shifts significantly toward quality control and supervision. Senior associates become the critical bridge between AI-generated work product and final deliverables, ensuring maintenance of the firm’s high standards while leveraging new technological capabilities. Although senior associates experience a 15% reduction in billable hours, their work becomes more sophisticated and valuable, thereby justifying a 50% higher hourly rate. Their time shifts away from routine reviews toward more strategic activities. They take on enhanced responsibilities (often non-billable) in training and supervising junior staff in the effective use of AI tools, while managing increasingly complex matter workflows. Client relationship development becomes a bigger part of their role, as they help clients understand and benefit from the firm’s enhanced capabilities.

Junior Associate Transformation

The most profound changes manifest at the junior associate level, where the impact of GenAI creates a fundamental restructuring of both headcount and work patterns. The 50% reduction in junior associate positions reflects the extensive automation of tasks that traditionally formed the foundation of junior associate work. We don’t foresee the elimination of the junior ranks altogether because of the need for law firm continuity and support; however, there will be a repurposing, which junior legal professional likely will embrace. No longer will junior legal professionals be subjected to the monotony of document review and adaptation of templates and legal forms into deliverables. Indeed, routine document review, basic legal research, and initial drafting of standard documents can easily transition to AI systems, requiring fewer but more technically skilled junior attorneys.

The remaining junior associates experience a 40% reduction in billable hours per matter, but their work becomes more intellectually engaging and valuable to the firm.  Associate happiness and professional gratification should increase. Document processing accelerates dramatically through AI assistance, while research capabilities expand through sophisticated natural language processing tools. Rather than spending hours on grunt work, junior associates will focus on refining AI-generated content and handling the more complex aspects of each matter that require human judgment and creativity. The streamlined review processes allow them to handle a larger number of matters simultaneously, developing broader experience more rapidly than in the traditional model.

Ancillary Effects of GenAI Adaptation

The transition to GenAI requires a comprehensive strategic response across multiple dimensions. Firms must fundamentally reimagine their service delivery model while maintaining profitability during the transition. This transformation presents opportunities to develop new revenue streams through AI-enabled service packages that leverage increased processing capacity, rapid response capabilities and self-service options. Forward-thinking firms are already positioning themselves to their clients for things like eDiscovery, offering process optimization, and other advisory services that extend beyond traditional legal counsel.

Cost management becomes particularly crucial during this transition. The reduction in junior staff headcount, while potentially challenging from a cultural perspective, offers significant cost savings. This shift also creates opportunities to rethink office space requirements, as automated processes and remote work capabilities reduce the need for traditional physical infrastructure.[6] The implementation of automated administrative functions and streamlined workflow processes further contributes to operational efficiency and cost reduction.

The elusive concept of “value” represents perhaps the most nuanced aspect of the legal industry’s strategic response to the GenAI threat. Firms must balance the efficiency gains from GenAI against client expectations for cost savings. This balance can be achieved through innovative pricing models that benefit both the firm and its clients. Premium pricing for ultra-strategic services, gainsharing arrangements, outcome-dependent pricing, and rapid services delivery premiums should become more prevalent in the GenAI era. Also, volume-based pricing models will be more attractive, as firms can handle significantly larger workloads with the same personnel and infrastructure. Technology-enabled fixed fee arrangements can provide predictability for clients while allowing firms to capture the value of their technology investments. Whatever the structure, the emergence of GenAI will allow for, or perhaps mandate, engagements with more creative, client-friendly revenue models.

• Strategic Resource Reallocation

Understanding historical work patterns via timekeeping data enables firms to make informed decisions to maximize revenue.  But that same analysis informs headcount needs and resource allocation in the GenAI era as well. With the benefit of technology-enabled task classification and workflow analysis of billing data, law firms can identify which practice areas face the greatest disruption from AI automation and how that disruption affects resource allocation, headcount needs, and workflow. Aspects of certain practice areas, such as due diligence in transactional work and document review-heavy litigation, may require significant restructuring. Other areas that involve complex advisory work, like regulatory advice or tax structuring, might need only minimal adjustments to personnel, resources, or workflow.

Firms must develop more concrete plans for resource reallocation, because legal professionals will be working differently in the future. Professionals whose current roles face significant automation should be retrained and redirected toward higher-value work that leverages their legal knowledge in new ways. Some legal professionals can transition into new roles managing and optimizing GenAI systems and the workflow generated by them. Still others might focus on developing deeper subject-matter expertise in areas resistant to automation.

The Dangers of Flying Blind

Many firms are trying to capitalize on GenAI solutions without first mapping their current operations, creating several serious risks that threaten both operational efficiency and long-term profitability.

In the initial instance, firm mustn’t take shortcuts when it comes to the task classification and workflow analysis. This analysis captures and quantifies vital information, sets a baseline, and can be measured and remeasured over time. After all, it is impossible to manage what you cannot measure. This step makes all the difference between success and failure.

The second major risk involves misaligned automation, where firms invest in AI solutions for tasks that aren’t actually the best candidates for automation. This misalignment can disrupt efficient workflows while failing to address the areas where AI could provide the greatest benefit.  An informed task classification and workflow analysis negates this risk.

A third critical risk involves overlooked dependencies in legal workflows. Without a thorough understanding of how different tasks and professionals interact, firms may implement automation that disrupts critical quality control mechanisms or creates bottlenecks in service delivery. These disruptions can damage both client relationships and work product quality.

Resource mismanagement represents another significant risk. Without clearly identifying which professionals will be most affected by AI automation, firms cannot effectively plan for retraining and reallocation of their talent. This can demoralize and under-utilize the skills of professionals who are inclined towards sophisticated work. Mismanagement also leads to both understaffing in critical areas, talent and proficiency gaps, and retention problems as professionals become uncertain about their future roles.

In the end, all risks and the return on investment calculation point back to the fact that firms implementing AI without proper baseline analysis can’t accurately measure their return on investment. Without clear metrics for current performance, it becomes impossible to quantify the benefits of AI implementation or identify areas where the technology isn’t delivering expected results.

Required Actions for Success

Success in the GenAI era will require fundamental changes in how law firms approach pricing, resource allocation, and service delivery. Change is complex and normally unwelcomed, particularly in the case of the legal industry. But change strikes us as inevitable here. Quite simply, the traditional hourly billing model must evolve into more sophisticated approaches that capture value rather than simply time spent. These new pricing models should share efficiency gains with clients while still rewarding the expertise and judgment that remain uniquely human contributions. Pricing models must also create greater predictability for both firms and clients, moving away from the uncertainty of purely time-based billing.

Service delivery must also evolve significantly. Firms need to standardize routine tasks to take full advantage of AI capabilities while maintaining mechanisms for integrating human expertise where it adds the most value. This requires new quality control mechanisms and often means significantly accelerated delivery timelines, as AI reduces the time required for many tasks.

As with any organizational change, success depends upon a structured approach that involves thorough strategic analysis, stakeholder buy-in, careful implementation and execution, and conscientious monitoring. Firms that are new to data-driven analysis should leverage knowledgeable, data-savvy external resources to facilitate the initiative.

With the right data analytics tools, the initial analysis phase should take six to eight weeks of a comprehensive review of historical billing data to understand current work patterns and revenue generation. The strategy development phase, which usually takes about a month, focuses on modeling the potential impact of GenAI implementation across different practice areas and work types. This modeling includes developing recommendations for workflow redesign, planning for resource reallocation, and creating new pricing models that reflect the changed economics of AI-augmented legal work. The implementation planning phase then addresses the practical aspects of transformation, including systemically implementing AI solutions, developing comprehensive training programs for professionals at all levels, creating clear client communication strategies about changes in service delivery, and establishing robust frameworks for monitoring performance and results. Development of new service lines should proceed based on market opportunities identified during the early phases. The implementation period establishes the foundation for the firm’s long-term competitive position in a technology-enabled legal services market.

After initial implementation, the next phase should center on evaluation and refinement, using careful analysis of pilot program results, with particular attention to both quantitative metrics and qualitative feedback from attorneys and clients. Pricing models require iterative refinement based on actual usage patterns and client response. Technology adoption should expand beyond the pilot groups, incorporating lessons learned and addressing implementation challenges identified in the initial phase.

The Path Forward

As with most of our works of authorship, we tend to make intrepid predictions. In this case, our predictions are not particularly complex. Law firms face three possible responses to this disruption, each with significantly different implications for their future success.

The first option – resisting change and maintaining traditional staffing and billing models – leads inevitably to declining profitability and increasing client pressure as competitors adopt more efficient approaches.

The second option – making only incremental adjustments while hoping to preserve as much of the current model as possible – merely delays the inevitable while potentially putting firms at a competitive disadvantage.

The third path – proactively embracing transformation by developing new business models that combine human expertise with technological efficiency – offers a sustainable way forward. Firms that successfully navigate this transition will emerge stronger, with more sustainable profit margins and greater competitive advantages. They will be better positioned to attract and retain top talent, as professionals seek firms that offer clear paths forward in the AI era. Most important, they will be able to deliver improved client satisfaction through more efficient, responsive service delivery.

Conclusion

The AI revolution in legal services demands a data-driven response. The future of legal services has arrived. Though the short-term challenges are significant, firms that use data to guide their transformation can create sustainable competitive advantages. The key is to move quickly but thoughtfully, using analytics to inform each step of the journey. Understanding historical workflows and billing patterns is crucial for identifying which aspects of practice face AI disruption and how to transform these challenges into opportunities. Success requires immediate action to embrace change while maintaining their commitment to excellence in legal service delivery—using AI to augment, rather than replace, human expertise.

---

[1]               Nancy B. Rapoport and Joseph R. Tiano, Jr., Fighting the Hypothetical: Why Law Firms Should Rethink the Billable Hour in the Generative AI Era (December 31, 2024). 20 Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts ____ (forthcoming Spring 2025) (currently available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5080449).

[2]               Roy Strom, Law Firms’ AI Nightmare Is Fewer Billed Hours and Lower Profits, BLOOMBERG L. (May 16, 2024, 2:00 AM), available at https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/law-firms-ai-nightmare-is-fewer-billed-hours-and-lower-profits.

[3]               See http://www.legaldecoder.com.

[4]                      With the reduction in headcount, there will also be concomitant reductions in related expenses like allocated administrative overhead, office space, allocated technology, and training.

[5]               Debra Cassens Weiss, Bad News for Associates? Report Finds Law Firms Are Shifting to New ‘Talent Model’ for Hiring, A.B.A. J. (Jan. 9, 2025, 3:30 PM CST). Available at https://www.abajournal.com/web/article/law-firms-reduced-the-pace-of-associate-hiring-shifting-to-new-talent-model-report-says (“One reason for the big growth in rates may be that law firms are focusing less on new associates and more on experienced lateral lawyers.”).

[6]                      We suspect that the ongoing debate regarding remote working versus return to the office will be influenced by the capabilities of GenAI and resource adjustments.

---