The conversation between corporate clients and their law firms about artificial intelligence has shifted decisively, moving well past the question of whether AI should be used at all.
Clients today want to understand which AI tools are being deployed, how those tools are supervised, and what protections exist around confidentiality and data security on their matters.
Leaders from Vinson and Elkins, Crowell and Moring, Cozen O’Connor, and Blank Rome all identified consistent themes when speaking with The National Law Review about this evolving landscape.
Andrew Woolf, Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer at Cozen O’Connor, described the shift plainly: “The question has moved from ‘Are you using AI?’ to ‘How are you using it, and how are you controlling it?'”
Woolf noted that clients are now requesting specific information about AI models, whether client data is retained or used for model training, what security controls exist, and how attorneys supervise AI-assisted work.
Aubrey Bishai, Chief Innovation Officer at Vinson and Elkins, observed that client attitudes have moved from “Don’t use AI on my matters” to “Please use AI on my matters where it makes sense.”
Bishai explained that current discussions focus on where AI can appropriately support legal work while fostering greater transparency and collaboration between law firms and in-house legal departments.
Alma Asay, Chief Innovation and Value Officer at Crowell and Moring, noted that clients are increasingly addressing AI through outside counsel guidelines, requests for proposal, and governance surveys rather than blanket prohibitions.
Asay was direct about the timeline, stating that “It’s not looking ahead, it’s today,” explaining that clients are already incorporating AI considerations into panel counsel selection and governance reviews.
She also reinforced that attorney accountability remains non-negotiable, saying “Ultimately what they are paying for is our lawyers’ legal advice and judgment,” with clients expecting attorneys to independently verify AI-generated work.
Ashton Batchelor, Chief Innovation and Value Officer at Blank Rome, framed the governance question clearly: “Innovation and AI governance aren’t mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other.”
Batchelor drew a direct comparison to how information security requirements evolved, noting that “AI governance is becoming as ubiquitous as information security and pricing in outside counsel engagements.”
Bishai reinforced that enterprise-grade AI platforms, attorney training, and alignment among people, processes, and technology have become essential components of any responsible AI adoption programme.
Woolf observed that firms best positioned to realise AI’s efficiency gains are those investing in robust governance, with strong security and quality control enabling responsible deployment rather than hindering it.
He summarised the client expectation concisely: “Clients will expect firms to adapt their operating models so they can safely and reliably deliver high-quality legal service using AI tools paired with human judgment.”
Woolf added that despite the technological transformation underway, “the end goal is the same as it has always been: clients expect excellent legal advice, sound judgment, responsiveness, and trust.”
Bishai captured the broader principle guiding firms navigating this moment: “This is a relationship business at its core,” with AI most valuable when it allows attorneys more time to apply expertise and judgment.
Emerging governance trends identified across the conversations include formal written AI frameworks, explicit supervisory responsibilities, documentation of AI use, and growing interest in standardised models applicable across outside counsel relationships.
Firms that combine strong governance, professional judgment, secure technology, and genuine innovation will be best placed to meet corporate clients’ rapidly evolving expectations.