Corporate legal departments have shifted their focus from whether outside counsel use artificial intelligence to how those tools are being applied. Questions have arisen about how law firms integrate the technology into their practice, what measures are in place to protect client information, and how legal professionals oversee AI-assisted tasks.
According to executives at Vinson & Elkins, Crowell & Moring, Cozen O'Connor, and Blank Rome who spoke with a broadcast outlet, the transformation is reshaping how law firms attract and retain clients. Legal departments are asking law firms to specify which artificial intelligence tools and platforms they deploy, whether client information is stored or incorporated into model training, what data protection measures are in place, and how lawyers verify AI-generated work before it is delivered to clients.
Andrew Woolf, Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer at Cozen O'Connor, noted that discussions around artificial intelligence have shifted from questions of adoption to those of governance and oversight. Aubrey Bishai, Chief Innovation Officer at Vinson & Elkins, outlined a comparable trajectory of change.
A growing number of clients now actively request that artificial intelligence be applied to their legal matters where appropriate, representing a notable shift in attitude, with the current emphasis falling on identifying suitable use cases while preserving open communication between law firms and in-house teams.
Law firms are expected to balance operational efficiency with the protection of confidentiality, quality, and professional judgment. Blank Rome's Chief Innovation and Value Officer Ashton Batchelor noted that AI governance and innovation are complementary rather than competing priorities.
Lawyer accountability remains a core client expectation, with Alma Asay, Chief Innovation and Value Officer at Crowell & Moring, noting that clients are ultimately paying for the legal expertise and professional judgement of the firm's attorneys. Legal professionals are expected to grasp both the capabilities and constraints of artificial intelligence tools, independently verify any AI-produced content, and bear full accountability for their final work product.
According to Woolf, organisations that prioritise robust security practices, quality assurance, and risk oversight are better placed to expand their use of AI in a responsible manner. Such oversight mechanisms are not obstacles to advancement; rather, they form the foundation upon which accountable implementation depends.
Organisations are now factoring AI considerations into how they evaluate and select panel counsel, draft requests for proposals, set outside counsel guidelines, and conduct governance reviews. Asay noted that these developments are already underway rather than on the horizon.
Procurement documents increasingly ask law firms to outline their intended use of artificial intelligence on individual engagements, along with records of oversight protocols, supervising attorneys, and vetted tools. Among the patterns taking shape in the field are written policy documents on artificial intelligence, defined oversight duties for lawyers supervising AI-assisted tasks, and records of when and how those tools are deployed.
Batchelor drew a parallel with cybersecurity standards, noting that AI governance is becoming as embedded in outside counsel engagements as information security and pricing, while conversations around the technology are also reshaping the broader attorney-client relationship. Legal clients expect clarity on where artificial intelligence provides genuine benefit, where its application is inappropriate, and how lawyers maintain professional oversight throughout AI-driven processes.
Numerous law firms are exchanging best practices and working alongside clients to develop AI-driven legal workflows, with Bishai noting that the profession remains fundamentally built on relationships. The greatest utility of AI lies in handling routine tasks, allowing legal professionals to direct their knowledge and judgement toward client needs rather than substituting for those distinctly human capacities.
Woolf observed that clients would expect law firms to reshape their operational structures to deliver reliable, high-quality legal services through a combination of AI tools and human oversight, and that for practitioners this points to AI proficiency becoming a skill directed at client relationships rather than purely an internal workflow concern.
Legal professionals who can demonstrate how artificial intelligence informs their practice, document its application, and acknowledge its limitations may find themselves in a stronger position to maintain existing client relationships and attract new ones, according to the executives. Businesses now regard AI integration as a baseline requirement rather than a competitive advantage.
Law firms that secure contracts will likely be those able to show sound governance practices, lawyer supervision of AI tools, and clear disclosure of how such technology is deployed, the executives indicated. Lawyers are building proficiency with AI-driven tools, learning to scrutinise what those systems produce, and communicating that process to a client base that is growing more knowledgeable about the technology.
Attorneys who incorporate AI proficiency into their practice as a foundational element of client representation — rather than treating it as peripheral — may find themselves at an advantage as industry expectations around this area continue to develop, according to the executives.
