Is Big Law ‘AI Gaslighting’ Us?

Is the recent spate of grand gestures by some Big Law firms, sometimes involving 100s of millions of dollars or more, just ‘AI gaslighting’? And in fact, do those large commercial law firms really have little intention of ‘changing the game’ despite huge announcements about their commitment to this new technology?

Or perhaps the moves are entirely well-intentioned, but management is simply not ‘reading the room’?

Either way, if the widescale deployment and investment in AI among large law firms provides no notable benefit to the clients, then what’s it all for?

If the outputs the clients receive are the same, are priced the same or more, and delivered in the same way, then maybe it would be better to spend all that money on just hiring in some star lateral partners, or opening offices in new markets? Why even bother with the whole AI thing?

Or are grand AI-related gestures that have no substantive impact on what clients receive at the end of the day the new ‘cost of doing business’? A sort of membership fee?

Another option is that this is all just one of the most expensive marketing projects the legal industry collectively has ever embarked upon? A Madison Avenue bonanza of massive proportions?

And one other – far more practical – possibility is that AI is simply there to cut the costs of doing business for large law firms? I.e. AI can help with crushing unbillable work, or work that is not that profitable. And that’s fair – after all, every business wants to reduce its costs. But, even so, how does that help the clients?

A Modest Proposal

Rather than banging on about how much money you’ve spent on AI, or tying yourself in knots trying to figure out how to make going slowly fit with going quickly, maybe just send out the heralds to announce how the clients may benefit from all of this technology investment.

And not just in theory, but send them hard numbers – just as PEP and revenue figures are shared with the legal media. Or maybe share at least some facts about how AI really changed things for the purchasers of your services?

Here are some ways it could happen. We’ll start with simple, then move to complex.

• Parts of the work, or even the whole matter, could cost less. AI crushes time. If a client has been paying for time inputs, then why not reduce the cost to them of that matter? That can be measured and communicated with ease. And if AI can only be applied to chunks of the matter, then just show that. If it’s a fixed fee, then awesome – that can be highlighted, and perhaps there’s a reduction in fee there as well, (while keeping a very nice margin for the law firm). But at least the client sees a tangible benefit. [ Note: the faster you handle a matter, the more matters you can handle as a firm in total. Even with small fee reductions via AI, increased throughput increases partner profits. None of this is about impoverishing firms, quite the opposite. But it is about helping to prove to the clients what the benefits of AI actually are. ]
• And following on from the point above, the work could be done more quickly. Some may argue that speed doesn’t matter. And it’s true that sometimes it doesn’t. But, often it really does, especially in transactional work. Can you show how much AI has helped you to accelerate the work you do for clients? Can you maybe make a table that shows where time is saved and how that in turn has supported a deal’s completion? (And hey, maybe you can charge more for faster deals…? E.g. a speed bonus? At least the client can still point at something and say: ‘Yes, I see a tangible benefit’ even if they pay more.)

OK, those are the ‘easy ones’. Now it gets harder, but no less important.

• Can you show you’ve improved the work product? Is it possible to show to the clients where AI has helped surface insights or legal arguments that changed the direction of the matter? That way, clients can at least be aware that the law firm’s use of AI did some good, even if neither speed or price altered.
• Is there a way to show that AI helped to reduce risk for the client? Now, this one is really tough, as a client only knows about risk for real if something goes very wrong. So, maybe this is not possible for a one-off matter. But, perhaps over a longer-term relationship between a client and a law firm there is a way to show how risks have been reduced overall? E.g. how a law firm’s use of AI on many years of employment cases helped to reduce escalation? AL acknowledges that this is really not easy at all. The top two are far more directly shown. But, if you fancy going into the deep end and really wowing the customers….

Conclusion

Big Law is an incredible sector, packed with brilliant lawyers who do sterling work for their clients on some of the most complex legal matters in the world. Long may it continue.

But…..

….if AI deployment is actually going to make any real difference here then there have to be tangible benefits for the clients. Tangible in the sense that a client can – over a period of months, or years – point to those work streams from a law firm, or panel of firms, and say: ‘Look, here are the ways that our law firms’ use of AI has helped. It’s clear. It’s understandable. It’s objective. It’s a real benefit. Let’s have some more!’

At the moment, it all feels like the exact opposite of this. It’s almost as if the louder and grander the announcements about AI, the less it’s clear how anyone on the client side is benefiting.

Final thought: Big Law has largely been responsible for bankrolling the development of legal AI. It would be ironic if it turns out that it’s the inhouse lawyers using AI within their own teams, and small to mid-size firms that tend to bill on fixed fees, or on no-win, no-fee, that end up really changing how they operate and thus reaping and delivering all the tangible benefits of this technology.

Richard Tromans, Founder, Artificial Lawyer – Nov 2026

—