On June 22, Thomson Reuters released its annual Future of Professionals Report that shows a continuing gap between what clients want from their law firms and what they are getting. Despite the continuing drumbeat of how AI is changing legal, the results paint a pretty dismal picture of AI use by law firms.

Steve Hasker, president and CEO of TR, summed it up in his foreword to the report:

While many organizations we spoke with have articulated AI strategies, they are not reflected in the day-to-day experience of their teams, and the expected improvements in quality, speed, and efficiencies have not yet materialized; not because the technology failed, but because the organization did not change around it.

The (Not So) Surprising Findings

Here is the biggest headline: 78% of the clients want AI improvements from their law firms. But only 6% — yes, 6%! — are getting those improvements. That’s a significant gap. In fact, some 32% say they will be reconsidering firms that aren’t satisfactorily using AI in the next year.

And it appears all the more alarming when you look at some other statistics from the survey. Of those surveyed, 74% say they use AI several times a week. Given the dissatisfaction with how slowly clients perceive their law firms are moving with AI programs, that suggests that a lot of lawyers are just using AI in ways that aren’t part of formal programs that are communicated to their clients. Indeed, 34% say they are using AI tools that their firm has not sanctioned and in ways the firm can’t see. Gulp.

The lack of formal programs is even more surprising when you consider that 66% of those in firms with a clear AI strategy report that AI is meeting or exceeding expectations when it comes to quality of work.

So what we have is

Lots of lawyers using AI tools, many outside of firm guidelines.
Clients wanting their firms to use AI, but their firms either aren’t using the tools in ways clients want or aren’t communicating it if they are.
Firms with formal-use programs clearly seeing the benefit.

Since the clients pay the bills and can control the relationship and since lawyers like using the tools, why the disconnect? The answer: clients aren’t demanding it. Based on previous surveys, that hasn’t changed much, and it’s also not surprising.

Mind The Gap

Surveys consistently show that neither side seems to be minding the gap. The difference between what clients want and what firms provide has in fact been around for some time. A 2025 study by the Blickstein Group, for example, showed 62% of clients did not believe their firms were innovative, 52% believed firms were not leveraging technology as well as they could, 77% encouraged firms to use AI, and 72% believed value could be increased if firms better used AI.

Some statistics from previous studies are more specific when it comes to AI use and programs. A 2023 survey from Thomson Reuters shows 86% of clients had not provided any guidance or expectations to their firms about use of AI. A similar survey released by Thomson Reuters last year reported that 57% of clients want their firm to use AI but 71% of those don’t know if they are doing so. Only 8% were inserting GenAI provisions in RFPs or outside counsel guidelines.

So given the history and ongoing trend it’s reasonable to conclude that despite talking the talk, few clients — and, for that matter, firms — are walking the walk.

But Why?

It’s easy to see why little has changed on the law firm side. To paraphrase a well-known quote, it’s hard to tell a roomful of millionaires that they need to pivot to tools that may reduce billable hours. But as I have written before, the reasons clients are not as assertive as they could be reveals why so little has changed on their side.

Most importantly, in-house counsel often just don’t want to interfere with outside counsel’s judgment across the board. After all, outside counsel are hired to do something that in-house counsel can’t do or don’t have the capacity to do. They are hired for their expertise. Questioning how they exercise their expertise is counter to the whole reason for hiring them in the first place.

In-house counsel also fear it may be seen as insulting and overreaching, further disrupting the relationship. Most lawyers by nature are a bit passive-aggressive: arguing about how outside lawyers do their work is an argument in-house would just as soon not have.

Add to this the fact that most in-house counsel come from the same culture as outside lawyers. They went to the same law schools and often even worked at the same firms as their outside counsel. They’ve internalized the law firm mindset of resistance to change.

Just like their outside lawyers, in-house counsel are usually just as risk averse, which outside lawyers manipulate. So you hear outside lawyers saying, “Well we could use AI on this particular matter, but it’s risky and we would have to check everything. It will end up costing more.”

Moreover, it’s easy to say on a global basis we want more AI use by our outside counsel. But when it comes to individual matters, it’s not so fast. Just like outside lawyers, a lot of in-house counsel regard themselves and their individual matters as special snowflakes to which general rules don’t apply. Add up all these special snowflakes, and it’s easy to see why adoption is slow.

So it’s easy to see why in-house counsel continue to keep their noses out of places where they should actually be sticking them.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same

Years ago, I got into a discussion with a thought leader about innovation by law firms. His observation was that some firms want to be innovative and that a lot more firms want to just say they are innovative. The same thing applies to in-house counsel and AI adoption by law firms. A lot of in-house counsel say they want more AI use by their firms. Far fewer actually demand it.

And that 32% that say they will be reconsidering firms that aren’t using AI in the next year? Don’t count on it. You are often talking about long-term relationships. Finding and hiring new firms can be disruptive and time consuming for in-house counsel who are already stretched to the max. So inertia rules.

The only saving exit to this dilemma is something Gina Passarella talked about at Legal Geek: businesspeople may be on the cusp of demanding more AI use and savings from both in-house and outside counsel. My experience over years of practice: when businesspeople run the show and oversee matters, it’s a whole new ballgame.

But till then, it’s legal business as usual.

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes TechLaw Crossroads, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.

The post In-House Counsel Say They Want More From Outside Counsel But Don’t Demand It appeared first on Above the Law.