Legal experts discuss scaling AI in first webinar on Wolters Kluwer 2026 Future Ready Lawyer Survey

Governance and trust

The group next turned to the issue of governance and trust. 46% of the FRL Survey respondents cited data privacy and cyber threats as top security concerns. The panelists agreed that these issues have been and should continue to be broad concerns of lawyers, whether related to AI or not. They pointed out that existing stringent protections for data handling, both voluntary and obligatory, already provide good frameworks. These should be followed in all cases, including when using AI tools.

One issue the panelists noted was that data privacy violations are more likely to occur with the use of “shadow AI” – when a lawyer uses an unapproved tool that is publicly accessible or uses a tool provided by the firm in an unapproved way. Zalewski noted that some clients are asking firms not to use AI with their data, because of a well-founded suspicion that some lawyers are using publicly available AI tools. He suggested that a solution is for the firms to provide good quality, safeguarded AI tools for their lawyers, and clients can then be informed of the data privacy protections that are in place.

Braegelmann noted that the quote, “As soon as it works, no one calls it AI anymore,” is applicable here. Many common, existing workplace tools are types of AI, from spell-check to online searches, and they are now readily accepted. Lawyers should simply be as careful in using AI tools as they are with client data in all other cases. Young attorneys want to use tools to help them do their best work, and clients appreciate it when a task can be completed in two billable hours rather than fifty. If firms enable their attorneys to use quality tools that comply with data privacy laws, everyone will benefit.

Operational and workflow changes

The panelists engaged in a lively discussion about how AI may change workplace culture and processes in the legal field. The FRL Survey found that more than half of participants believed that certain tasks impacted by AI – legal research, document review, and document drafting, in particular – will be increasingly outsourced to alternative legal service providers (ALSPs).

The panelists were largely in agreement with this assessment and discussed the important distinction between tasks that lawyers must complete – legal advice, or “core” legal work – and tasks that do not require a lawyer – providing legal information, or “context” work – that can be outsourced to ALSPs. However, Crutchfield made an important observation – these entities should at this point be referred to as “LSPs” because they are no longer “alternative,” but rather the standard choice for many tasks.

Regardless of the power of AI, there will remain a core set of tasks that will require a human lawyer to complete. However, many of the more rote or time-consuming tasks can be outsourced to LSPs.

Regulatory readiness

The FRL Survey found that 81% of legal professionals felt that developing regulations governing the use of AI will be highly impactful. The approaches to AI regulation are currently quite different across different regions, such as in the United States, the European Union, and China. Miot asked the panel what it thought about the potential jurisdictional differences that might arise as regulations are implemented.

Zalewski noted that a key issue in this area is confidentiality and how it interacts with cross-border data transfers. This, Zalewski said, is similar in many ways to issues that arose when cloud-based data storage methods were first adopted. He stated that, currently, most AI vendors are located in the United States, outside of the European Union and the coverage of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). A concern for entities in Europe is that they must count on the vendor to maintain protections for client data that meet the requirements of the GDPR. This is causing many firms to look for local models and solutions.

Operating models and the billable hour

AI has the power to alter the way people work and also the way companies do business. 52% of respondents reported that their organizations have seen revenue growth after adopting AI, and 62% expect AI-driven efficiencies to reduce billable hours. Miot inquired of the panel how AI might change the way lawyers work and the reliance on the billable hour. Crutchfield noted a trend in outside counsel guidelines in which many clients state that they will not pay for certain things, including the use of AI, driving up billable hour rates.

Zalewski noted that one solution is to use set fees. An attorney could start from his or her billable hour rate, estimate the time and effort a task will take, and then translate that into a set fee for the client that incorporates the attorney’s overhead. That gives clients the predictability they are looking for while also keeping the price adequate to cover the tools the attorney uses. He suspects this may become a more common billing method moving forward.

Looking forward – Training as the key to success in scaling AI

Miot concluded the discussion by asking the panelists what they thought people get wrong about AI. Graue suggested that a misunderstood point is that AI is not about the tools, but rather about change management, adapting workflows, and adopting AI in the daily habits of the workforce. Several other panelists echoed this sentiment. As Zalewski noted, people may want to wait for the “best” AI model, but the reality is that better training of the human users vastly improves the outputs of AI tools and their contributions to efficiency. Rather than waiting for the best tool, companies should train their employees now to get the best outcomes and the widest adoption.