{"id":157216,"date":"2026-07-17T13:12:27","date_gmt":"2026-07-17T21:12:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/17\/the-bighand-legal-report-more-trouble-for-ostriches\/"},"modified":"2026-07-17T13:12:27","modified_gmt":"2026-07-17T21:12:27","slug":"the-bighand-legal-report-more-trouble-for-ostriches","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/07\/17\/the-bighand-legal-report-more-trouble-for-ostriches\/","title":{"rendered":"The\u00a0BigHand\u00a0Legal Report:\u00a0More Trouble\u00a0For Ostriches"},"content":{"rendered":"

I recently reported<\/a> on the findings of a Deloitte Legal survey<\/a> that revealed the continuing sizable gap between where legal departments are with respect to AI versus their law firms. Broadly put, legal departments are well ahead of their firms when it comes to AI use and expectations. Legal department representatives believe a good portion of work done by outside lawyers will be insourced and AI usage will increase. It was Deloitte\u2019s view that law firms are by and large not ready.<\/p>\n

Shortly after my post, I came across another study, this time by a vendor, that suggests the same thing albeit from a slightly different angle. The study and report, entitled Legal Workflow Leadership Report<\/em><\/a> was done by BigHand<\/a>, a legal tech vendor that focuses on the business side of law practice. It drew on the insights from over 800 law firm leaders and legal professionals.<\/p>\n

From reading the BigHand report, it\u2019s clear the goal of the study was to help convince law firms to purchase BigHand\u2019s products. As such, I always take these kinds of surveys with a grain of salt. But with the Deloitte Legal findings from the legal department side, the credibility of the BigHand study goes up. And taken together, the pictures aren\u2019t pretty for law firms.<\/p>\n

A Scary Consistency<\/strong><\/p>\n

Indeed, some of the BigHand conclusions were spot on since they were so consistent with what Deloitte Legal found when it came to law firms. Says BigHand:<\/p>\n

This year\u2019s findings\u2026reveal a growing gap in operational readiness for the AI age. While almost all firms are now using AI across support services in some capacity, far fewer are redesigning workflow, delegation models, roles and skill structures needed to support it effectively.<\/p>\n

The survey, of course, focused on support services. These are services on the business side of the law firms and not legal work on the client side on which Deloitte Legal focused. But if law firms are struggling to get it right on the support side which can lower their internal costs, what can they hope to do on the legal work side where AI has the propensity to reduce revenues?<\/p>\n

Consider this finding from BigHand: \u201csupport team utilization often remains unclear, and firms struggle to measure the true impact of AI on productivity, profitability and client service.\u201d The Deloitte Legal report noted much the same thing: AI compels a change in how legal services are priced and valued but too many law firms have no idea how to make that change. Nor the ability.<\/p>\n

Clients Will Vote with Their Feet<\/strong><\/p>\n

The actual findings paint a grim picture for law firms that aren\u2019t willing to change how they deal with and use AI. Ninety-five percent of the firms surveyed already report increased client attrition. Almost half say their clients are wondering why fees have not decreased despite the availability of AI. Forty-two percent say clients are asking for alternative fee arrangements.<\/p>\n

And like Deloitte Legal, BigHand concludes client expectations are going up, more work will be brought in-house, and in-house legal is reducing the number of panel counsel. Clients want faster turnaround, more transparency, and higher quality delivery. Firms that don\u2019t meet these increasing desires and expectations will find themselves replaced, often without a word of warning.<\/p>\n

The Current Use of Support Staff<\/strong><\/p>\n

BigHand believes that meeting client expectations in the age of AI hinges in large part on support staff management and delegation. It stands to reason: in my experience, you can\u2019t deliver top-notch service at a good price with a piss poor support staff.<\/p>\n

Yet almost half of those surveyed say they expect to lose anywhere between 21 to 50% of their support staff in the near future. And they admit this attrition will have a direct impact on billable hours, revenue and, perhaps most importantly, disrupt client relationships. Client relationships that are hard to repair once disrupted. That disruption can bring long-term financial and even survivability consequences.<\/p>\n

Despite these expected losses to support staff, only 21% are using what BigHand calls structured workflow technology to better allocate tasks and improve delegation. BigHand puts it bluntly:<\/p>\n

Without a clear and empirical understanding of workload, capacity and performance, it is difficult to ensure that the right work is handled by the right resource\u2014and the true impact of AI on productivity and profitability is almost impossible to measure.<\/p>\n

Another interesting finding: 43% of those surveyed say additional time is now required to check and verify AI outputs. In other words, because firms have not figured out a way to efficiently and accurately verify outputs, much of the time savings from the use of AI, savings that could be passed along to clients, is offset<\/a>. Certainly, verification is critical. But BigHand\u2019s point is a good one. A lot of firms have not yet figured out how to do that efficiently.<\/p>\n

Finally, only 23% are developing reporting techniques to explain how AI efficiencies are being applied to client work. No wonder only 4% of those surveyed by Deloitte Legal say their firms have shown them any sort of benefits from the use of AI. Frankly, the firms are clueless.<\/p>\n

And How Are Firms Dealing with the Attrition?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Short answer: they aren\u2019t. Close to 20% plan increase in salaries to existing staff of less than 5%; less than 40% plan increases only in the 5-10% range. Only 27% think prioritizing how lawyers pass work to support staff is important. Only 64% use technology to track support staff productivity and efficiency. Without data, how in the world can firms determine what staff they really need and how to deploy it, says BigHand. Only 29% have made changes to their support teams to incorporate new skill sets.<\/p>\n

And get this one: only 41% have reviewed support staff tasks to determine where automation and AI can deliver the greatest impact.<\/p>\n

Why So Dismal?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Why are the numbers so dismal? BigHand doesn\u2019t opine but I will. Based on experience, it\u2019s lawyer hubris, pure and simple. Lawyers look down their noses at what they call the \u201cnon-lawyers\u201d working in a firm. Too many still think even if under their breath that only the lawyers can effectively run and manage the firm. That only the equity partners can make business and support staff decisions. After all, say the partners, we own the firm, we run the firm, and you, support staff, work for us. Which means the legal professionals on support staffs are ignored and undervalued.<\/p>\n

Unquestionably, strides have been made. Lots of law firms now have COOs and CFOs instead of having the firm run by the partner with the biggest book of business. But old habits die hard, especially with a consensus-based<\/a> decision model which many firms still have.<\/p>\n

So Where Are We?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ordinarily, I would caution placing too much stock in a vendor\u2019s survey that coincidentally shows law firm needs that vendor products happen to meet. But in this case, where the findings are so consistent with those of Deloitte Legal, the numbers reveal a continuing and alarming \u201chide your head in the sand\u201d culture. A culture that\u2019s even more concerning since, as between the clients and the lawyers, \u201cthe balance of power has shifted,\u201d says BigHand. That\u2019s a trend noted by Deloitte Legal and which I have reported<\/a> on before.<\/p>\n

Bottom line? The ostrich law firms that keep their heads in the sand are going to lose business. Deloitte Legal sees it. BigHand sees it. And after over 30 years in Biglaw, I see it.<\/p>\n

Get your head out of the sand.<\/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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The post The\u00a0BigHand\u00a0Legal Report:\u00a0More Trouble\u00a0For Ostriches<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

I recently reported<\/a> on the findings of a Deloitte Legal survey<\/a> that revealed the continuing sizable gap between where legal departments are with respect to AI versus their law firms. Broadly put, legal departments are well ahead of their firms when it comes to AI use and expectations. Legal department representatives believe a good portion of work done by outside lawyers will be insourced and AI usage will increase. It was Deloitte\u2019s view that law firms are by and large not ready.<\/p>\n

Shortly after my post, I came across another study, this time by a vendor, that suggests the same thing albeit from a slightly different angle. The study and report, entitled Legal Workflow Leadership Report<\/em><\/a> was done by BigHand<\/a>, a legal tech vendor that focuses on the business side of law practice. It drew on the insights from over 800 law firm leaders and legal professionals.<\/p>\n

From reading the BigHand report, it\u2019s clear the goal of the study was to help convince law firms to purchase BigHand\u2019s products. As such, I always take these kinds of surveys with a grain of salt. But with the Deloitte Legal findings from the legal department side, the credibility of the BigHand study goes up. And taken together, the pictures aren\u2019t pretty for law firms.<\/p>\n

A Scary Consistency<\/strong><\/p>\n

Indeed, some of the BigHand conclusions were spot on since they were so consistent with what Deloitte Legal found when it came to law firms. Says BigHand:<\/p>\n

This year\u2019s findings\u2026reveal a growing gap in operational readiness for the AI age. While almost all firms are now using AI across support services in some capacity, far fewer are redesigning workflow, delegation models, roles and skill structures needed to support it effectively.<\/p>\n

The survey, of course, focused on support services. These are services on the business side of the law firms and not legal work on the client side on which Deloitte Legal focused. But if law firms are struggling to get it right on the support side which can lower their internal costs, what can they hope to do on the legal work side where AI has the propensity to reduce revenues?<\/p>\n

Consider this finding from BigHand: \u201csupport team utilization often remains unclear, and firms struggle to measure the true impact of AI on productivity, profitability and client service.\u201d The Deloitte Legal report noted much the same thing: AI compels a change in how legal services are priced and valued but too many law firms have no idea how to make that change. Nor the ability.<\/p>\n

Clients Will Vote with Their Feet<\/strong><\/p>\n

The actual findings paint a grim picture for law firms that aren\u2019t willing to change how they deal with and use AI. Ninety-five percent of the firms surveyed already report increased client attrition. Almost half say their clients are wondering why fees have not decreased despite the availability of AI. Forty-two percent say clients are asking for alternative fee arrangements.<\/p>\n

And like Deloitte Legal, BigHand concludes client expectations are going up, more work will be brought in-house, and in-house legal is reducing the number of panel counsel. Clients want faster turnaround, more transparency, and higher quality delivery. Firms that don\u2019t meet these increasing desires and expectations will find themselves replaced, often without a word of warning.<\/p>\n

The Current Use of Support Staff<\/strong><\/p>\n

BigHand believes that meeting client expectations in the age of AI hinges in large part on support staff management and delegation. It stands to reason: in my experience, you can\u2019t deliver top-notch service at a good price with a piss poor support staff.<\/p>\n

Yet almost half of those surveyed say they expect to lose anywhere between 21 to 50% of their support staff in the near future. And they admit this attrition will have a direct impact on billable hours, revenue and, perhaps most importantly, disrupt client relationships. Client relationships that are hard to repair once disrupted. That disruption can bring long-term financial and even survivability consequences.<\/p>\n

Despite these expected losses to support staff, only 21% are using what BigHand calls structured workflow technology to better allocate tasks and improve delegation. BigHand puts it bluntly:<\/p>\n

Without a clear and empirical understanding of workload, capacity and performance, it is difficult to ensure that the right work is handled by the right resource\u2014and the true impact of AI on productivity and profitability is almost impossible to measure.<\/p>\n

Another interesting finding: 43% of those surveyed say additional time is now required to check and verify AI outputs. In other words, because firms have not figured out a way to efficiently and accurately verify outputs, much of the time savings from the use of AI, savings that could be passed along to clients, is offset<\/a>. Certainly, verification is critical. But BigHand\u2019s point is a good one. A lot of firms have not yet figured out how to do that efficiently.<\/p>\n

Finally, only 23% are developing reporting techniques to explain how AI efficiencies are being applied to client work. No wonder only 4% of those surveyed by Deloitte Legal say their firms have shown them any sort of benefits from the use of AI. Frankly, the firms are clueless.<\/p>\n

And How Are Firms Dealing with the Attrition?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Short answer: they aren\u2019t. Close to 20% plan increase in salaries to existing staff of less than 5%; less than 40% plan increases only in the 5-10% range. Only 27% think prioritizing how lawyers pass work to support staff is important. Only 64% use technology to track support staff productivity and efficiency. Without data, how in the world can firms determine what staff they really need and how to deploy it, says BigHand. Only 29% have made changes to their support teams to incorporate new skill sets.<\/p>\n

And get this one: only 41% have reviewed support staff tasks to determine where automation and AI can deliver the greatest impact.<\/p>\n

Why So Dismal?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Why are the numbers so dismal? BigHand doesn\u2019t opine but I will. Based on experience, it\u2019s lawyer hubris, pure and simple. Lawyers look down their noses at what they call the \u201cnon-lawyers\u201d working in a firm. Too many still think even if under their breath that only the lawyers can effectively run and manage the firm. That only the equity partners can make business and support staff decisions. After all, say the partners, we own the firm, we run the firm, and you, support staff, work for us. Which means the legal professionals on support staffs are ignored and undervalued.<\/p>\n

Unquestionably, strides have been made. Lots of law firms now have COOs and CFOs instead of having the firm run by the partner with the biggest book of business. But old habits die hard, especially with a consensus-based<\/a> decision model which many firms still have.<\/p>\n

So Where Are We?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ordinarily, I would caution placing too much stock in a vendor\u2019s survey that coincidentally shows law firm needs that vendor products happen to meet. But in this case, where the findings are so consistent with those of Deloitte Legal, the numbers reveal a continuing and alarming \u201chide your head in the sand\u201d culture. A culture that\u2019s even more concerning since, as between the clients and the lawyers, \u201cthe balance of power has shifted,\u201d says BigHand. That\u2019s a trend noted by Deloitte Legal and which I have reported<\/a> on before.<\/p>\n

Bottom line? The ostrich law firms that keep their heads in the sand are going to lose business. Deloitte Legal sees it. BigHand sees it. And after over 30 years in Biglaw, I see it.<\/p>\n

Get your head out of the sand.<\/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.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I recently reported on the findings of a Deloitte Legal survey that revealed the continuing sizable gap between where legal departments are with respect to AI versus their law firms. Broadly put, legal departments are well ahead of their firms when it comes to AI use and expectations. Legal department representatives believe a good portion […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":157217,"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-157216","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\/2026\/07\/heads-in-the-sand-x0SRu7.jpg?fit=988%2C399&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157216","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=157216"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157216\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/157217"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}