{"id":155493,"date":"2026-06-26T15:32:41","date_gmt":"2026-06-26T23:32:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/06\/26\/in-house-counsel-say-they-want-more-from-outside-counsel-but-dont-demand-it\/"},"modified":"2026-06-26T15:32:41","modified_gmt":"2026-06-26T23:32:41","slug":"in-house-counsel-say-they-want-more-from-outside-counsel-but-dont-demand-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/06\/26\/in-house-counsel-say-they-want-more-from-outside-counsel-but-dont-demand-it\/","title":{"rendered":"In-House Counsel Say They Want More From Outside Counsel But Don\u2019t Demand It"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On June 22, <a href=\"https:\/\/legal.thomsonreuters.com\/en\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Thomson Reuters<\/a> released its annual <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thomsonreuters.com\/en-us\/posts\/technology\/future-of-professionals-2026\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Future of Professionals Report<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n<p>Steve Hasker, president and CEO of TR, summed it up in his foreword to the report:\u00a0<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>The (Not So) Surprising Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Here is the biggest headline: 78% of the clients want AI improvements from their law firms. But only 6% \u2014 yes, 6%! \u2014 are getting those improvements. That\u2019s a significant gap. In fact, some 32% say they will be reconsidering firms that aren\u2019t satisfactorily using AI in the next year.<\/p>\n<p>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\u2019t 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\u2019t see. Gulp.<\/p>\n<p>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.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>So what we have is\u00a0<\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Lots of lawyers using AI tools, many outside of firm guidelines.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>Clients wanting their firms to use AI, but their firms either aren\u2019t using the tools in ways clients want or aren\u2019t communicating it if they are.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>Firms with formal-use programs clearly seeing the benefit.\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>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\u2019t demanding it. Based on previous surveys, that hasn\u2019t changed much, and it\u2019s also not surprising.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Mind The Gap<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>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 href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/2025\/02\/genai-legal-ops-and-the-future-of-law-firms-a-wake-up-call\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">A 2025 study<\/a> by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.blicksteingroup.com\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Blickstein Group<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n<p>Some statistics from previous studies are more specific when it comes to AI use and programs. A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/2023\/04\/thomson-reuters-report-reveals-standard-lawyer-ai-skepticism\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">2023 survey<\/a> from Thomson Reuters shows 86% of clients had not provided any guidance or expectations to their firms about use of AI. A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/2025\/04\/the-ai-conversation-law-firms-and-clients-arent-having-and-why-it-matters\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a0similar survey<\/a> released by Thomson Reuters last year reported that 57% of clients want their firm to use AI but 71% of those don\u2019t know if they are doing so. Only 8% were inserting GenAI provisions in RFPs or outside counsel guidelines.<\/p>\n<p>So given the history and ongoing trend it\u2019s reasonable to conclude that despite talking the talk, few clients \u2014 and, for that matter, firms \u2014 are walking the walk.<\/p>\n<p><strong>But Why?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s easy to see why little has changed on the law firm side. To paraphrase a well-known quote, it\u2019s hard to tell a roomful of millionaires that they need to pivot to tools that may reduce billable hours.<strong> <\/strong>But as I have <a href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/2025\/04\/the-ai-conversation-law-firms-and-clients-arent-having-and-why-it-matters\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">written before<\/a>, the reasons clients are not as assertive as they could be reveals why so little has changed on their side.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Most importantly, in-house counsel often just don\u2019t want to interfere with outside counsel\u2019s judgment across the board. After all, outside counsel are hired to do something that in-house counsel can\u2019t do or don\u2019t 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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\u2019ve internalized the law firm mindset of resistance to change.<\/p>\n<p>Just like their outside lawyers, in-house counsel are usually just as risk averse, which outside lawyers manipulate. So you hear outside lawyers saying, \u201cWell we could use AI on this particular matter, but it\u2019s risky and we would have to check everything. It will end up costing more.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, it\u2019s easy to say on a global basis we want more AI use by our outside counsel. But when it comes to individual matters, it\u2019s 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\u2019t apply. Add up all these special snowflakes, and it\u2019s easy to see why adoption is slow.<\/p>\n<p>So it\u2019s easy to see why in-house counsel continue to keep their noses out of places where they should actually be sticking them.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>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.\u00a0Far fewer actually demand it.<\/p>\n<p>And that 32% that say they will be reconsidering firms that aren\u2019t using AI in the next year? Don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n<p>The only saving exit to this dilemma is something Gina Passarella <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/2026\/06\/gina-passarellas-powerful-talk-at-legal-geek-law-firms-that-dont-face-change-may-soon-run-out-of-gas\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">talked about<\/a> 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\u2019s a whole new ballgame.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>But till then, it\u2019s legal business as usual.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n<p><strong><em>Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener nofollow\">TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The post <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/2026\/06\/in-house-counsel-say-they-want-more-from-outside-counsel-but-dont-demand-it\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">In-House Counsel Say They Want More From Outside Counsel But Don\u2019t Demand It<\/a> appeared first on <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>On June 22, <a href=\"https:\/\/legal.thomsonreuters.com\/en\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Thomson Reuters<\/a> released its annual <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thomsonreuters.com\/en-us\/posts\/technology\/future-of-professionals-2026\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Future of Professionals Report<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n<p>Steve Hasker, president and CEO of TR, summed it up in his foreword to the report:\u00a0<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>The (Not So) Surprising Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Here is the biggest headline: 78% of the clients want AI improvements from their law firms. But only 6% \u2014 yes, 6%! \u2014 are getting those improvements. That\u2019s a significant gap. In fact, some 32% say they will be reconsidering firms that aren\u2019t satisfactorily using AI in the next year.<\/p>\n<p>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\u2019t 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\u2019t see. Gulp.<\/p>\n<p>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.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>So what we have is\u00a0<\/p>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Lots of lawyers using AI tools, many outside of firm guidelines.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>Clients wanting their firms to use AI, but their firms either aren\u2019t using the tools in ways clients want or aren\u2019t communicating it if they are.\u00a0<\/li>\n<li>Firms with formal-use programs clearly seeing the benefit.\u00a0<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>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\u2019t demanding it. Based on previous surveys, that hasn\u2019t changed much, and it\u2019s also not surprising.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Mind The Gap<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>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 href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/2025\/02\/genai-legal-ops-and-the-future-of-law-firms-a-wake-up-call\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">A 2025 study<\/a> by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.blicksteingroup.com\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Blickstein Group<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n<p>Some statistics from previous studies are more specific when it comes to AI use and programs. A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/2023\/04\/thomson-reuters-report-reveals-standard-lawyer-ai-skepticism\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">2023 survey<\/a> from Thomson Reuters shows 86% of clients had not provided any guidance or expectations to their firms about use of AI. A <a href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/2025\/04\/the-ai-conversation-law-firms-and-clients-arent-having-and-why-it-matters\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">\u00a0similar survey<\/a> released by Thomson Reuters last year reported that 57% of clients want their firm to use AI but 71% of those don\u2019t know if they are doing so. Only 8% were inserting GenAI provisions in RFPs or outside counsel guidelines.<\/p>\n<p>So given the history and ongoing trend it\u2019s reasonable to conclude that despite talking the talk, few clients \u2014 and, for that matter, firms \u2014 are walking the walk.<\/p>\n<p><strong>But Why?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s easy to see why little has changed on the law firm side. To paraphrase a well-known quote, it\u2019s hard to tell a roomful of millionaires that they need to pivot to tools that may reduce billable hours.<strong> <\/strong>But as I have <a href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/2025\/04\/the-ai-conversation-law-firms-and-clients-arent-having-and-why-it-matters\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">written before<\/a>, the reasons clients are not as assertive as they could be reveals why so little has changed on their side.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Most importantly, in-house counsel often just don\u2019t want to interfere with outside counsel\u2019s judgment across the board. After all, outside counsel are hired to do something that in-house counsel can\u2019t do or don\u2019t 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.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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\u2019ve internalized the law firm mindset of resistance to change.<\/p>\n<p>Just like their outside lawyers, in-house counsel are usually just as risk averse, which outside lawyers manipulate. So you hear outside lawyers saying, \u201cWell we could use AI on this particular matter, but it\u2019s risky and we would have to check everything. It will end up costing more.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, it\u2019s easy to say on a global basis we want more AI use by our outside counsel. But when it comes to individual matters, it\u2019s 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\u2019t apply. Add up all these special snowflakes, and it\u2019s easy to see why adoption is slow.<\/p>\n<p>So it\u2019s easy to see why in-house counsel continue to keep their noses out of places where they should actually be sticking them.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>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.\u00a0Far fewer actually demand it.<\/p>\n<p>And that 32% that say they will be reconsidering firms that aren\u2019t using AI in the next year? Don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n<p>The only saving exit to this dilemma is something Gina Passarella <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/2026\/06\/gina-passarellas-powerful-talk-at-legal-geek-law-firms-that-dont-face-change-may-soon-run-out-of-gas\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">talked about<\/a> 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\u2019s a whole new ballgame.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>But till then, it\u2019s legal business as usual.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\">\n<p><strong><em>Stephen Embry is a lawyer, speaker, blogger, and writer. He publishes\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.techlawcrossroads.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener nofollow\">TechLaw Crossroads<\/a>, a blog devoted to the examination of the tension between technology, the law, and the practice of law.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The post <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/2026\/06\/in-house-counsel-say-they-want-more-from-outside-counsel-but-dont-demand-it\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">In-House Counsel Say They Want More From Outside Counsel But Don\u2019t Demand It<\/a> appeared first on <a href=\"https:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"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-155493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155493","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=155493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155493\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}