Legal professionals gathered at ILTACON 2026 heard a clear message: superficial answers about AI adoption are no longer acceptable to sophisticated clients.
Donovan Bell, a CLOC board member and former head of global legal operations at Intel, argued that law firms must demonstrate the full detail of how AI is used across a matter.
Bell recalled a particularly effective approach from an outside counsel that sat down and walked him through exactly how AI was involved at every stage of a matter’s life.
“I was fortunate to have a firm sit down and give me a presentation,” Bell said, describing how the session covered AI’s role as an enabler, its effect on costs, and quality assurance throughout.
“That really appealed to me,” he added. “It made me sit up, lean forward, and definitely say, ‘OK, I want to hear more, and definitely want to work with you.'”
Bell spoke on a Litera masterclass panel that examined how law firms should and should not respond when clients ask about their use of artificial intelligence tools.
Litera GC Dennis Garcia, who moderated the session, acknowledged that providing detailed AI disclosures to every client represents a significant operational challenge for firms of any size.
The question is now appearing in RFP responses, security questionnaires, retainer agreements, and amendments to those agreements, reflecting how seriously clients are treating the issue.
“It seems like a relatively straightforward question, which could be easy to answer,” Garcia said. “And the reality is, it’s not so easy to answer, because you just can’t say, ‘Hey, we’re using these AI solutions or tools.’ You need to get deeper.”
Panellists were blunt about the responses that fail to impress, warning that formulaic, high-level answers are among the fastest ways to damage a client relationship.
Firms that promise change without a baseline to measure it against, or that fail to demonstrate understanding of a client’s specific workflows, are likely to cause concern rather than confidence.
Rahul Chhabra, a former legal operations professional at Meta and now director of applied AI at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, stressed that clients want to see technology professionals involved, not just lawyers, when firms discuss their AI capabilities.
“We want to see the right capabilities within the firms now, to help them shape and use this technology,” Chhabra said, reinforcing the expectation that AI adoption requires dedicated specialist input.
Bell outlined what a genuinely compelling AI disclosure looks like, emphasising that it must address cost optimisation and risk management in concrete, matter-specific terms.
“It’s not just me saying, ‘Hey I see you’re using AI, so why isn’t the bill rate going down?'” Bell noted. “But it’s more so: ‘Here’s the life of the matter, and here’s the cost of that matter, and how not only am I able to optimize the cost, but also here’s where you’re effectively managing the risk.'”
Garcia reinforced that a single standardised answer sent to all clients is wholly inadequate given how differently individual organisations use legal services.
“You just can’t give one standard answer to each of your clients regarding this question, right?” Garcia said. “You have to make it a tailored and bespoke answer that is responsive to their needs.”
Chhabra acknowledged that measuring AI’s return on investment remains an industry-wide challenge, a point illustrated when Garcia asked the panel audience whether anyone had effectively measured AI ROI and almost no hands were raised.
“Today, we don’t have all the answers of how it’s actually helping us get return on investment,” Chhabra said. “But if we do not learn these tools today while we’re trying to figure out the ROI answer, we are going to be left behind.”
Chhabra painted an ambitious picture of where genuine AI transparency could ultimately lead, pointing towards outcome-based pricing models that reward firms for delivering measurable results within agreed timeframes.
He cited the example of a company willing to pay a firm a $2 million bonus if litigation could be resolved within six months, with the client’s potential gain from resolving the matter reaching $100 million.
“Those conversations when you’re transparent with your clients, when you’re having the real conversations with them,” Chhabra said, underscoring that detailed, honest dialogue is the foundation on which these commercial arrangements can be built.