{"id":139412,"date":"2025-12-19T13:01:11","date_gmt":"2025-12-19T21:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/12\/19\/the-future-of-legal-services-it-may-not-be-what-we-think\/"},"modified":"2025-12-19T13:01:11","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T21:01:11","slug":"the-future-of-legal-services-it-may-not-be-what-we-think","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/12\/19\/the-future-of-legal-services-it-may-not-be-what-we-think\/","title":{"rendered":"The Future Of Legal Services: It May Not Be What We Think"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But I am Omus. Emperor of Delta Three. I don\u2019t want to hear any more. I don\u2019t think I even know you; you\u2019re some sentimental old fool who doesn\u2019t understand anything. I, I am the world of the future, you\u2019re back in some dark past. People are no longer necessary.\u00a0<\/em>\u2014 H.G. Wells, \u201cThe Shape of Things to Come\u201d<\/p>\n

Just because something has always been so doesn\u2019t necessarily mean it always will be. Take the traditional law firm with partners, associates, and a slew of support staff. Is that really the model for the future? Or is that just a sentimental view from the dark past that\u2019s no longer necessary?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I read an article recently<\/a> about a legal tech start up that announced it was launching an independent law firm that would offer \u201cAI-native\u201d legal services. The legal tech company, Norm Ai<\/a>,\u00a0focuses primarily on compliance work. It claims it can turn \u201cregulations into AI agents \u2026 that can make compliance determinations\u201d according to its website<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The law firm, Norm Law LLP, will use Norm\u2019s AI tools to do legal work for Blackstone (a Norm Ai investor) and other financial service clients. According to the article, the law firm will offer alternative legal services.<\/p>\n

Lawhive And Woodstock<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some time ago, I wrote<\/a> about the acquisition of a law firm in the UK by a legal tech company. The idea was that the firm would become more or less an \u201cAI first\u201d law firm, handling most matters with AI tools. The firm would use the technology developed by the tech company to achieve these ends. That deal involved\u00a0 Lawhive, a legal tech company buying a law firm, Woodstock.<\/p>\n

I wondered about the impact of this development and whether it would be the shape of things to come as legal tech companies began to discover they can play a greater role (and take a greater share of the profits) by owning law firms that do the work with AI tools or even doing the legal work themselves.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Norm Ai<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Norm Ai deal is very similar to that I described in my previous article. Of course, since Norm Law is a U.S firm, it has to exist independently of Norm with no ownership interests by those dreaded \u201cnonlawyers.\u201d But that\u2019s form over substance. Norm Law is Norm\u2019s law firm, using its tools and no doubt being largely directed by Norm AI, just as the Woodstock firm is under the control of Lawhive.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s Just The Beginning<\/strong><\/p>\n

We\u2019ll see more and more of these arrangements. The tech company ensures its tech will be used by the law firm. The tech company can ensure that the firm capitalizes on AI, reducing the cost of personnel and overhead. The profit comes from the reduced cost of the overhead and the ability to scale the lower overhead services across a broad spectrum.<\/p>\n

And as AI gets more and more sophisticated, the role and number of the human lawyers in such arrangements gets less and less. These tech-affiliated firms can thus offer cost advantages to their owners and can leverage alternative fee structures in new and different ways. They have an advantage over traditional slow-moving large firms. They have an advantage over standalone AI-first law firms in that they have a steady client and access to the tech companies\u2019 customers who need legal services as well.\u00a0<\/p>\n

What Does This Mean For Lawyers In The Loop?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The standard thinking is that we need not worry our pretty little heads about AI since there will always be a need for the lawyer in the loop. But rarely does anyone stop and ask just what this means. I noted in my previous piece some thoughts<\/a> by Jordan Furlong who predicts that new era law firms may offer and get paid for output\u00a0 to clients with no lawyer involvement at all. He added that many of the services provided by law firms already can be done by AI. In a more recent LinkedIn post<\/a>, Furlong wondered if the slew of recent law firm mergers signals that Biglaw is in \u201clate stage decline or experiencing a platform shift.\u201d<\/p>\n

All of this is to say that the whole notion of lawyer in the loop will soon take a different shape. Indeed, the whole idea of the Lawhive and Norm Ai hinges on reducing the number of lawyers in the loop. Which is to the benefit of the legal tech company who can now not only provide the product but any legal services that its customers may need, at a fraction of the cost. This, in turn, ties the customer more and more to the legal tech company and its lawyers. It makes a lot of sense. And as I mentioned before<\/a>, it\u2019s only a matter of time, regulations permitting, that the tech company just provides the legal services itself and takes all the profits.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But What About Atrium?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another \u201ctruism\u201d is that history shows these deals don\u2019t work. And yes, it\u2019s been frequently pointed out that a similar arrangement was tried by Atrium in 2017 and failed. Reportedly<\/a> the failure was caused by the inability of the law firm to deliver better efficiency than a traditional law firm. So, it folded in 2020. The argument therefor is the old \u201cwe tried that before, and it didn\u2019t work\u201d refrain.<\/p>\n

But that was then and now is now. We have much more sophisticated AI tools that can do much more. So, the likelihood of success and continued expansion of these kinds of deals seems much higher.<\/p>\n

An Added Benefit<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is one significant benefit that these deals could bring. There is a great underserved market for legal services in this country. Traditional law firms encumbered with a billable hour model and culture have not figured out how to tap this market. In fact, truth be known, they haven\u2019t even tried. But legal tech companies with captive AI first law firms very well could. And that could be a financial bonanza for them and available legal services for millions.<\/p>\n

The Risk And Cost<\/strong><\/p>\n

But the decline of the traditional law firm that may be inevitable comes with a cost: the loss of the human element in the practice and advice being offered. The ability to understand the personalities and needs of the clients. The ability to offer high-end strategy and expertise across various fields and the synergies that come with it.<\/p>\n

The Challenge<\/strong><\/p>\n

But that\u2019s like saying horses are better forms of transportation because they are mammals like us, have personalities, are nice companions, and have soft hair. All of which is true. But cars get us where we need to go faster and more efficiently, which enables us to do all sorts of other things.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The real challenge isn\u2019t recognizing that the traditional law firm model is changing. Indeed, disruption always creates winners who see opportunities early. The challenge is ensuring legal services remain human centered where they need to be even as they become more automated, and that the benefits don\u2019t accrue only to those who can already afford premium legal services.<\/p>\n

Traditional firms can either adapt, or they can continue maximizing short-term distributions to wealthy partners while the market moves around them. The choice seems obvious.<\/p>\n

\n

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The post The Future Of Legal Services: It May Not Be What We Think<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But I am Omus. Emperor of Delta Three. I don\u2019t want to hear any more. I don\u2019t think I even know you; you\u2019re some sentimental old fool who doesn\u2019t understand anything. I, I am the world of the future, you\u2019re back in some dark past. People are no longer necessary.\u00a0<\/em>\u2014 H.G. Wells, \u201cThe Shape of Things to Come\u201d<\/p>\n

Just because something has always been so doesn\u2019t necessarily mean it always will be. Take the traditional law firm with partners, associates, and a slew of support staff. Is that really the model for the future? Or is that just a sentimental view from the dark past that\u2019s no longer necessary?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I read an article recently<\/a> about a legal tech start up that announced it was launching an independent law firm that would offer \u201cAI-native\u201d legal services. The legal tech company, Norm Ai<\/a>,\u00a0focuses primarily on compliance work. It claims it can turn \u201cregulations into AI agents \u2026 that can make compliance determinations\u201d according to its website<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The law firm, Norm Law LLP, will use Norm\u2019s AI tools to do legal work for Blackstone (a Norm Ai investor) and other financial service clients. According to the article, the law firm will offer alternative legal services.<\/p>\n

Lawhive And Woodstock<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some time ago, I wrote<\/a> about the acquisition of a law firm in the UK by a legal tech company. The idea was that the firm would become more or less an \u201cAI first\u201d law firm, handling most matters with AI tools. The firm would use the technology developed by the tech company to achieve these ends. That deal involved\u00a0 Lawhive, a legal tech company buying a law firm, Woodstock.<\/p>\n

I wondered about the impact of this development and whether it would be the shape of things to come as legal tech companies began to discover they can play a greater role (and take a greater share of the profits) by owning law firms that do the work with AI tools or even doing the legal work themselves.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Norm Ai<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Norm Ai deal is very similar to that I described in my previous article. Of course, since Norm Law is a U.S firm, it has to exist independently of Norm with no ownership interests by those dreaded \u201cnonlawyers.\u201d But that\u2019s form over substance. Norm Law is Norm\u2019s law firm, using its tools and no doubt being largely directed by Norm AI, just as the Woodstock firm is under the control of Lawhive.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s Just The Beginning<\/strong><\/p>\n

We\u2019ll see more and more of these arrangements. The tech company ensures its tech will be used by the law firm. The tech company can ensure that the firm capitalizes on AI, reducing the cost of personnel and overhead. The profit comes from the reduced cost of the overhead and the ability to scale the lower overhead services across a broad spectrum.<\/p>\n

And as AI gets more and more sophisticated, the role and number of the human lawyers in such arrangements gets less and less. These tech-affiliated firms can thus offer cost advantages to their owners and can leverage alternative fee structures in new and different ways. They have an advantage over traditional slow-moving large firms. They have an advantage over standalone AI-first law firms in that they have a steady client and access to the tech companies\u2019 customers who need legal services as well.\u00a0<\/p>\n

What Does This Mean For Lawyers In The Loop?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The standard thinking is that we need not worry our pretty little heads about AI since there will always be a need for the lawyer in the loop. But rarely does anyone stop and ask just what this means. I noted in my previous piece some thoughts<\/a> by Jordan Furlong who predicts that new era law firms may offer and get paid for output\u00a0 to clients with no lawyer involvement at all. He added that many of the services provided by law firms already can be done by AI. In a more recent LinkedIn post<\/a>, Furlong wondered if the slew of recent law firm mergers signals that Biglaw is in \u201clate stage decline or experiencing a platform shift.\u201d<\/p>\n

All of this is to say that the whole notion of lawyer in the loop will soon take a different shape. Indeed, the whole idea of the Lawhive and Norm Ai hinges on reducing the number of lawyers in the loop. Which is to the benefit of the legal tech company who can now not only provide the product but any legal services that its customers may need, at a fraction of the cost. This, in turn, ties the customer more and more to the legal tech company and its lawyers. It makes a lot of sense. And as I mentioned before<\/a>, it\u2019s only a matter of time, regulations permitting, that the tech company just provides the legal services itself and takes all the profits.\u00a0<\/p>\n

But What About Atrium?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Another \u201ctruism\u201d is that history shows these deals don\u2019t work. And yes, it\u2019s been frequently pointed out that a similar arrangement was tried by Atrium in 2017 and failed. Reportedly<\/a> the failure was caused by the inability of the law firm to deliver better efficiency than a traditional law firm. So, it folded in 2020. The argument therefor is the old \u201cwe tried that before, and it didn\u2019t work\u201d refrain.<\/p>\n

But that was then and now is now. We have much more sophisticated AI tools that can do much more. So, the likelihood of success and continued expansion of these kinds of deals seems much higher.<\/p>\n

An Added Benefit<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is one significant benefit that these deals could bring. There is a great underserved market for legal services in this country. Traditional law firms encumbered with a billable hour model and culture have not figured out how to tap this market. In fact, truth be known, they haven\u2019t even tried. But legal tech companies with captive AI first law firms very well could. And that could be a financial bonanza for them and available legal services for millions.<\/p>\n

The Risk And Cost<\/strong><\/p>\n

But the decline of the traditional law firm that may be inevitable comes with a cost: the loss of the human element in the practice and advice being offered. The ability to understand the personalities and needs of the clients. The ability to offer high-end strategy and expertise across various fields and the synergies that come with it.<\/p>\n

The Challenge<\/strong><\/p>\n

But that\u2019s like saying horses are better forms of transportation because they are mammals like us, have personalities, are nice companions, and have soft hair. All of which is true. But cars get us where we need to go faster and more efficiently, which enables us to do all sorts of other things.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The real challenge isn\u2019t recognizing that the traditional law firm model is changing. Indeed, disruption always creates winners who see opportunities early. The challenge is ensuring legal services remain human centered where they need to be even as they become more automated, and that the benefits don\u2019t accrue only to those who can already afford premium legal services.<\/p>\n

Traditional firms can either adapt, or they can continue maximizing short-term distributions to wealthy partners while the market moves around them. The choice seems obvious.<\/p>\n

\n

Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law<\/strong><\/em>.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The post The Future Of Legal Services: It May Not Be What We Think<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

But I am Omus. Emperor of Delta Three. I don\u2019t want to hear any more. I don\u2019t think I even know you; you\u2019re some sentimental old fool who doesn\u2019t understand anything. I, I am the world of the future, you\u2019re back in some dark past. People are no longer necessary.\u00a0\u2014 H.G. Wells, \u201cThe Shape of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":139398,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139412","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/artificial-intelligence-6767502_1280-OW9leG.jpg?fit=1280%2C853&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139412","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=139412"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139412\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/139398"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139412"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139412"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139412"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}