When a managing partner casually mentions in a partner meeting, "I used Claude to prep this brief last night—cut my prep time from four hours to about 45 minutes," something shifts.

Not because anyone's shocked that AI works. Everyone's heard the pitch by now. But because a respected leader actually trusted it with their own work.

This moment matters more than any policy memo or training session. McKinsey's 2025 State of AI research found that high-performing organizations are three times more likely to have senior leaders who demonstrate active ownership of AI and personally role-model its use. The pattern shows up consistently across industries, and it's particularly pronounced in professional services.

Firms don't scale AI because they buy software. They scale it when managing partners go first.

Heading into 2026, the gap between firms where leadership uses AI and firms where leadership delegates AI is widening. The ones who delegate are stuck in endless vendor evaluations and pilot programs. The ones who use it are quietly building operational advantages that compound quarterly.

Your client relationships remain your strongest competitive advantage. Nothing here is about replacing that.

But what general counsel defines as "good service" has shifted significantly over the past 18 months, and it's accelerating into 2026.

The clients and legal departments who renew your retainer in 2026 are quietly comparing your responsiveness and delivery speed to firms using AI-level leverage. Legal teams expect AI to significantly reshape legal work by 2027, with rising expectations for self-service options and productivity gains that weren't on the table three years ago.

Client-side pressure is moving faster than most firms realize. Recent surveys show clients are actively pushing firms toward AI adoption, citing efficiency, quality improvements, and competitive differentiation as their primary motivators.

Here's the nuance that matters: relationships still open doors. But the firms that keep those relationships are increasingly the ones who can demonstrate modern delivery capability alongside deep expertise.

A managing partner who doesn't personally use AI may appear behind the curve to clients who've already integrated it into their own legal operations, even when the substantive legal advice remains excellent. This isn't a distant trend. It's happening now in client procurement conversations, panel reviews, and competitive pitches across mid-market and large firms.

Most partners hear "AI efficiency" and think, "If I get faster, do I just bill less?"

That's the wrong risk to worry about going into 2026.

The bigger threat is losing matters to firms who can credibly demonstrate AI-enabled delivery and quality. In my experience working with mid-sized firms, organizations with strong executive ownership of AI tend to see more measurable financial upside because they're not reacting to market pressure but leading with it.

Billing models are evolving more slowly than the headlines suggest. Many attorneys still bill traditionally in 2025, though AI is nudging the market toward alternative fee arrangements. But here's what separates firms who maintain pricing power from those forced into discounting:

The partners who experiment now with AI on internal workflows—like meeting prep or strategic briefings—build the confidence, metrics, and operational muscle to proactively design value-based pricing on their terms. The ones who wait often get those models imposed by procurement teams or lose work to firms who already offer them.

Think of it this way: you have two paths. Use AI to deliver better work faster and maintain pricing power through premium positioning. Or ignore AI and get forced into price competition when clients realize other firms can do the work in half the time.

The gap between those outcomes is widening every quarter, and 2026 is likely when that gap becomes visible in win rates and realization metrics.

McKinsey's research uncovered a specific mechanism: when senior leaders demonstrate ownership and actively role-model AI use, adoption cascades through the organization far more effectively than policy or training alone.

In practical terms, that cascade has four steps:

First, a managing partner quietly starts using AI for a real task. Not a test. Not a demo. Actual work.

Second, they mention it casually in a partner meeting. No big announcement. No formal initiative. Just, "I used this tool to prep for today."

Third, partners and associates notice. AI stops being theoretical and becomes something a respected leader actually trusts with their own work.

Fourth, within weeks, others start testing it on their own matters. Not because they were told to, but because visible permission from leadership made it safe to try.

Let me show you what this looks like with a concrete workflow: Partner Meeting Prep for Strategic Discussions.

Typical scenario: Every Monday morning, one partner spends three to four hours reviewing contracts in the pipeline, skimming key updates, and preparing talking points for the weekly partner huddle. It's essential work, but it's grinding through details to find what matters.

The partner points an AI tool like Claude or ChatGPT at a folder of contracts and case updates and asks it to summarize each one, focusing on key obligations, deadlines in the next 60 days, and strategic risk points. The AI generates a one-page brief in about 10 minutes.

The partner then spends 30 to 40 minutes reviewing that brief, spot-checking two or three contract summaries against the source documents. This verification step takes about five minutes and is essential for responsible AI use. Then they add strategic notes that only a human partner would know matter.

Total time: under an hour instead of three to four hours. That's roughly three hours back every Monday.

Quality: more consistent, fewer missed details, and the partner still adds the critical judgment layer that clients pay for.

The real shift happens when that partner openly says in the meeting, "I used AI to prep this brief. Here's what I checked manually." That one sentence does more for firm-wide adoption than any policy memo, because it signals that using AI doesn't make you less expert. It makes you more efficient at the parts that don't require senior judgment.

Employees are often more ready for AI than leadership assumes. They just need visible permission from the top.

We've built this exact workflow and it's available for download below. It automates the Monday morning contract review process, uses dual-AI verification to catch discrepancies, and generates a one-page strategic brief you can review and customize. Setup takes about 25 minutes, then it runs itself every Monday.

This is often the same type of workflow mid-sized firms would pay consultants between three and five thousand dollars to build.

The reframe: AI handles commodity pattern-matching and information aggregation. Partners focus on judgment, nuance, client strategy, and the contextual decisions that make or break matters.

You're not outsourcing expertise. You're compressing the information-gathering phase so you spend more time on what actually requires a senior partner's brain.

Clients increasingly see combining deep expertise with smart tooling as a marker of sophistication, not weakness. The general counsel who's already using AI in their own department expects their outside counsel to do the same.

Billing models are shifting, but the reality is more gradual than the hype. Many firms still bill hourly. Alternative fees are growing, but they're not universal overnight.

Here's the clearer risk going into 2026: partners who experiment now build the pricing and packaging muscle for when alternative fee models become table stakes. The ones who wait get those models imposed by clients or lose pitches to competitors who've already figured out how to price AI-enabled delivery.

Starting with one internal workflow like meeting prep doesn't require a pricing revolution. It builds confidence and proof points for when you choose to experiment with value-based fees on client work. You control the timeline instead of reacting in crisis mode when a client demands it.

What Happens When Managing Partners Go First

Your associates and operations team are likely already experimenting quietly with AI. Clients are moving faster than most firms realize. The missing piece in most firms isn't technology or training.

It's visible leadership.

Here's what I'd encourage you to do this week: Pick one workflow. Use the workflow automation framework to test AI on meeting prep or strategic briefing. Then share one honest sentence with your team about what you tried and what surprised you.

In three years, nobody will remember which tool you picked. They will remember who went first.

A) Managing partner will personally lead AI adoption
B) We'll hire a dedicated AI/innovation role
C) Our legal ops team will drive it
D) We're still in "wait and see" mode
E) Partners will adopt individually, no firm-wide push

[Reply with your letter choice] - I'll share the results in the next edition.

As we head into 2026, the pattern is clear.

The firms making real progress on AI aren't the ones with the biggest budgets or the fanciest platforms. They're the ones where managing partners personally use the tools and talk about it openly.

That visible permission matters more than policy, more than training, more than vendor selection.

Your team is already capable. Your clients are already expecting it. The missing piece in most firms isn't technology or capability. It's leadership willing to go first.

What's your take on this dynamic?

Hit reply and let me know where your firm stands heading into 2026.

Happy New Year!

— Liam Barnes

Not sure where your firm should start with AI?

We conduct comprehensive AI audits for law firms, identifying your highest-ROI automation opportunities across practice areas.

From client intake to document review to knowledge management, we map your workflows, prioritize "quick wins," and build implementation roadmaps with measurable business cases.

Book a discovery call to see where AI can save your firm 60 to 80% of time on repetitive tasks.

(if you don’t see a suitable time, just shoot me an email [email protected])

How Did We Do?

Your feedback shapes what comes next.
Let us know if this edition hit the mark or missed.

Too vague? Too detailed? Too long? Too Short? Too pink?

👍 Loved it | 👎 Not for me | 💡 I Have a Suggestion

OR: [email protected]

Was this week’s newsletter forwarded to you?

Sign up, it’s free.

Last Week’s Reader Poll Results