How Law Firms Turn AI Efficiency Into Client Value
Faster legal work raises a bigger question for firms: How can they turn time saved into better outcomes for their clients?
AI is changing how quickly law firms can complete legal work. For clients, though, it’s about what that speed makes possible: an earlier business decision, a broader view of risk, or more time for the judgment a matter requires.
At Harvey FORUM in Sydney, Hilary Goodier (Partner and Global Chair of NewLaw and Consulting at Ashurst Perkins Coie) and Michelle Mahoney (Chief Innovation Officer at Mallesons) were joined by Michael Griffith (Deputy General Counsel at Telstra) for a candid discussion of how AI is changing the value firms can deliver, and how clients assess it.
Their perspectives offer a way for law firms and legal teams to think more clearly about pricing, service, and the time lawyers spend on the work that is more valuable.
Show Clients What AI Changes
Clients want to see what a firm’s use of AI changes about the work they receive. Griffith said Telstra, Australia’s leading telecommunications and information services company, evaluates firms on the same things it valued before AI — what has changed is the range of benefits a firm might be able to deliver.
His questions give firms a useful starting point when discussing a matter with a client. Could AI reduce the cost of the work? Help the firm deliver specialized advice sooner? Make it possible to examine more documents or identify risks that would otherwise go unexplored? The answer will depend on what the client is trying to achieve. A deadline tied to a business decision, for example, may make speed more valuable than a reduction in fees.
That distinction is important when firms decide how to scope and price the work. The most compelling proposal is one that explains what the client will gain and how the firm plans to deliver it.
Connect Faster Work to Client Value
The value of faster work depends on what clients can do with the time gained. Goodier described an obligations mapping project for a global investment bank that her team completed in five weeks using AI, compared with an estimated six months by conventional methods. The client estimated that the work would allow it to enter a new market five months earlier.
Goodier said the firm spoke openly with the client about what the project needed to achieve and how to share the value created by using AI. In this case, the earlier market entry mattered more than the reduction in legal fees. On another matter, lower costs or a more thorough review might be the priority. Those differences are hard to reflect in a standard discount applied to every AI-assisted task.
They also raise a question for firms built around billable hours. When a firm can deliver valuable work in much less time, an hourly fee may no longer reflect what the client receives or what it takes the firm to deliver it.
Changing the price is only part of the challenge. Goodier noted that targets and bonuses tied to hours can discourage lawyers from using methods that save time. Firms need to consider how they recognize that work internally if they want lawyers to deliver using AI consistently.
Make Room for Deeper Analysis
AI can also change the scope of the work a firm is able to offer. Mahoney described how her team now spends less time gathering and organizing data, leaving more time to examine what it reveals.
When lawyers spend less time gathering the data, they can examine more of it and ask questions that a narrower review might miss. Mahoney gave the example of examining a clause across thousands of arrangements, rather than looking at a small sample. Goodier pointed to contract remediation, portfolio reviews, and compliance projects that clients may previously have considered too expensive or time-consuming to pursue.
For firms, the opportunity is to ask what a client could learn from reviewing the full set of relevant information. A faster first pass may free lawyers to spot patterns, test an assumption, or raise an issue early enough for the client to act on it.
Preserve Time for Judgment
Faster analysis can help lawyers reach the complex parts of a matter sooner. It can also create pressure to deliver a final answer sooner. Griffith raised a concern about that pace: the time needed to weigh a difficult decision may be a small part of the overall process, but it should not be compressed simply because the earlier steps move faster.
A firm might use AI to review documents, organize findings, and prepare an initial view of the issues. Lawyers still need time to test that view, discuss the tradeoffs with the client, and decide what to recommend. AI can shorten the time it takes to prepare the work while giving lawyers and clients enough time to consider what the findings mean and what to do next.
Building Work Around the Client’s Goal
In the end, the most valuable use of AI will depend on the matter. A client entering a new market may prize five months gained; another may need a fuller view of risk or more time to weigh a difficult decision. The law firm’s job is to understand which result offers the best value to the client and build the work around delivering it.
For more on how legal organizations — both firms and in-house teams— are measuring AI’s impact beyond time saved, read RSGI’s latest report, The Accelerating Impact of Legal AI.
