Key insights:

• • • The duty of competence now includes technology 鈥� Rules first written for legal knowledge and diligence are being read to cover the tools lawyers use, not just the arguments they make.

    • The rules didn’t anticipate AI, but they still apply 鈥� Formal opinions and updated guidance make clear that generative and agentic AI fall squarely within lawyers鈥� existing ethical obligations.

    • What reaches the court carries the highest stakes 鈥� A lawyer’s technology missteps are most consequential, and most visible, the moment they show up in a filing, an exhibit, or an argument made to a judge.

Every attorney holds a duty of competence, and that duty has always included legal knowledge and sound judgment. Today, however, it now extends to technology as well. Often called 鈥�technical competence鈥�, today鈥檚 duty of competence requires understanding the benefits and risks of the tools used in practice, not just the law itself.

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct describe an attorney’s duty of competence as the obligation to provide representation using the (Rule 1.1). Comment 8 of the rule states explicitly, in part: 鈥淭o maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology鈥� .鈥�

Indeed, competence matters well beyond a lawyer’s own file. Every filing, brief, and exhibit is, in effect, a lawyer’s communication to the court, and the court relies on the presumption that what it receives has been prepared with care. When a lawyer misunderstands or misuses technology, whether that means citing an AI hallucination as precedent or mishandling e-discovery output, the failure lands directly on the judge’s desk.

Rules of professional conduct are written broad and durable, so they do not need constant revision. Even so, few could have anticipated the pace of technological change now reaching the legal field.

A lawyer cannot simply plead ignorance when technology goes wrong, and failing to understand the tools being used can lead to ethics complaints, sanctions, or malpractice claims. Perhaps even more damaging, it can just as easily undermine a judge’s confidence in everything else that lawyer submits.

Rules built to last meet a technology no one predicted

Each state and territory maintains their , but most draw heavily on the ABA’s Model Rules as a foundation. Precedent is also shaped by disciplinary proceedings and case law, including a growing number of cases in which judges have sanctioned lawyers for submitting AI-generated content that was never checked for accuracy.

Rules of professional conduct are written broad and durable, so they do not need constant revision. Even so, few could have anticipated the pace of technological change now reaching the legal field. E-discovery was an early example, already raising real questions about what a lawyer could certify to a court in good faith. The more significant shift today is generative AI (GenAI) and agentic AI, capable of producing legal analysis or even taking action with minimal human oversight, often producing material that looks polished and authoritative right up until a judge or opposing counsel checks it.

Recognizing this shift, the ABA issued in July 2024 on the use of GenAI tools in legal practice, confirming that the duty of competence applies squarely to AI. The Formal Opinion requires lawyers to understand these tools well enough to use them responsibly, supervise their output, and avoid overreliance on unverified results 鈥� a standard that matters most the moment a document is filed, or an argument is made in open court.

5 ways to stay ahead of the curve

Given how quickly legal technology is evolving, and how little margin for error exists once something reaches a judge, there are five practical ways that lawyers can maintain their technical competence, including:

1. 1. 1. Pursue CLEs and structured education 鈥� Continuing legal education courses focused on AI, e-discovery, and cybersecurity offer a reliable, credentialed way to stay current. Many state bars now offer, and some require, CLE credits specifically on legal technology, exposing lawyers to real-world case studies that include those involving AI missteps that have drawn judicial sanctions.
      2. Build personal familiarity through hands-on use 鈥� Reading about a tool is no substitute for using it. Treating AI as a “thought partner,” for drafting, brainstorming, or spotting issues, helps professionals develop an intuitive feel for what these tools do well and in which ways they fall short, long before a document ever reaches a court. This low-stakes experimentation on matters that don鈥檛 impact client confidentiality or sensitive data can help build practical AI fluency.
      3. Practice in sandboxes and controlled environments 鈥� Before relying on a new platform in an active matter, test it in a sandbox first. Many vendors and firms now offer walled-off spaces to explore a tool’s features and failure points without exposing real client data.
      4. Review organizational guidelines 鈥� Firms, courts, and bar associations increasingly publish their own AI use policies that cover permitted tools, disclosure requirements, and data security. A growing number of courts also require lawyers to certify or disclose any AI use in filings, making familiarity with local rules as important as firm policy.
      5. Choose the right tools for the task 鈥� Free consumer-grade AI tools may suit general research, but should not be used in matters involving privileged or sensitive information, let alone a court filing. Premium and fiduciary-grade platforms, built with legal-specific safeguards around data handling and auditability, are better suited for substantive casework. Matching the tool to the sensitivity of the task, rather than convenience, is critical.

Used together, these five habits can help lawyers build a durable foundation in AI literacy. While technology will keep evolving, of course, any lawyer who has internalized this approach will be far less likely to be caught off guard once their work is tested in front of a judge.

Why this is about more than just the rules

Maintaining technical competence is not simply about avoiding disciplinary consequence. It is about preserving what the legal system is meant to provide. When lawyers understand the technology they use, including AI, they can apply it to research and review in ways that benefit clients and courts alike.

Just as importantly, technical competence protects the public’s trust in the legal profession, and something more immediate: a judge’s ability to rely on what lawyers put in front of them. In the end, technical competence is not a burden imposed by the rules; rather, it鈥檚 what allows the relationship between lawyers and the court, and the profession itself, to keep working.

For more on AI in the courts, check out the 听鈥� a joint effort by the National Center for State Courts听(NCSC) and the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI)

Key takeaways:

• • • Stability is the story 鈥� The OBBB’s main value has been predictability for business planning, not sweeping new rules 鈥� a sharp contrast to the disruption of prior major tax legislation like the TCJA.

    • Section 1202 is a live opportunity 鈥� The expanded QSBS exclusion has reopened planning conversations around corporate structuring that had cooled in recent years.

    • Plan for both today and tomorrow 鈥� Practitioners should help clients capitalize on current certainty while preserving flexibility, and they should help clients build tax positions that can hold up to increasingly AI-powered IRS scrutiny.

When major tax legislation lands, the instinct is to brace for upheaval. But one year after the passage of the (OBBB) Act, the consensus among practitioners is notably different: The OBBB didn鈥檛 rewrite the rules so much as confirm them, and that distinction has mattered more than it might sound.

Certainty over seismic change

Unlike the (TCJA) 鈥� which was passed in 2017, mostly took effect the following year, and forced practitioners to relearn much of the code 鈥� the OBBB’s significance lies less in what it changed and more in what it settled. It gave businesses a stable set of rules to plan against, rather than a moving target to which to react.

“From a purely tax lens, it was… easier to unpack than in prior years because there are fewer seismic changes,鈥� says , Partner at Plante Moran, reflecting on the past year under the OBBB. 鈥淚t was providing a lot of clarity that just [meant], at least for the next several years, we had the rules.”

That clarity is not a small thing. Multi-year business decisions 鈥� around such big-ticket items as entity structuring, capital investment, and succession planning 鈥� depend on practitioners being able to tell clients that the rules will hold. Thus, OBBB’s real contribution was buying back that predictability.

Section 1202 comes back to life

If one provision captures the OBBB’s practical impact, it’s the revitalization of 鈥� the qualified small business stock (QSBS) gain exclusion. The expansion of this program has done more than simply adjust a technical detail; indeed, it has reopened a whole category of planning conversations that had gone quiet.

“The action around the qualified small business stock gain exclusion… has really reinvigorated the Section 1202 planning conversations,鈥� Eckert explains. 鈥淯ltimately, what we got was an expansion of the program. So, what that has done is reinvigorated those conversations around planning into corporate structures.”

For founders, investors, and the tax advisors who serve them, that means is back on the table 鈥� and often earlier in a company’s lifecycle than before, since the incentive to structure correctly from the outset is now more valuable.

A new kind of advisory opportunity

Of course, stability doesn’t mean passivity. If anything, the OBBB has expanded what tax professionals can offer clients. With a known set of rules, advisors can move beyond compliance and into genuine strategy by helping clients maximize their position under current law while still preparing for the fact that today’s certainty has a shelf life.

That balance 鈥� seize the moment, but don’t get comfortable 鈥� is a concept that isn鈥檛 lost on many tax specialists. “Maximize your opportunities today but also have a long-term view while having flexibility and preserving flexibility wherever you can, and knowing and anticipating that there could be future changes,” Eckert says, framing this moment as a broader opening for the profession, not just a technical one.

Legislative clarity, he argues, gives practitioners a reason to go deeper with clients than simply processing the next filing. “From a practitioner lens, I think [legislative changes] are a huge opportunity… giving us an opportunity to really bring value to our clients and to also get to know our clients better,鈥� he notes. 鈥淚t’s been, in a certain sense, a great opportunity to just build deeper relationships.”

In other words, the firms getting the most out of this environment aren’t the ones treating the OBBB as a compliance checklist; rather, they’re the ones using it as a reason to have a better conversation with clients about where they’re headed.

The IRS isn’t standing still either

The one area in which practitioners should definitely not get comfortable is enforcement. A smaller IRS workforce doesn’t mean lighter scrutiny 鈥� it likely means a different kind. As the agency leans more heavily on AI-driven tools, its ability to examine returns at scale is set to expand even as headcount contracts.

“I think across the board, we’re certainly aware of that and are counseling clients on the need to establish and build positions and think carefully about it,鈥� Eckert explains. 鈥淚n a world of AI-enabled tools, the scrutiny may actually increase, and the ability for the IRS to quickly and efficiently examine lots of data is something that could certainly exist.”

That means that tax advisors need to help their clients build positions that can withstand more sophisticated review, not less. Meticulous documentation and defensible reasoning matter more, not less, in an environment in which fewer human examiners can still cover more ground with better tools.

One year in, the OBBB’s legacy isn’t a story of dramatic reform, but rather it’s a story of tax firms and their clients finally getting room to plan. The tax advisors making the most of that room are the ones using it to build sharper strategies and deeper client relationships, all while keeping an eye on an IRS that’s quietly getting more capable of deeper examination.

You can find more of听our coverage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act听here

Key highlights:

• • • Employer-driven curriculum design 鈥� The director of the accounting program at The University of Central Florida (UCF) consulted with 16 leading accounting practitioners to learn what AI skills employers need today from graduates.

    • Critical thinking milestones for students 鈥� UCF developed an AI competency framework delivered through a fictional theme park case study that was woven across tax, cost accounting, and financial accounting coursework.

    • Human skills as a competitive advantage 鈥� Recognizing that AI cannot replicate certain capabilities, UCF鈥檚 Dixon School introduced six to eight professional skills workshops (per academic year) covering topics such as relationship management, project management, agentic AI, and critical thinking to ensure that graduates bring irreplaceable human value to the profession.

The accounting profession is at an inflection point as the level of generative AI (GenAI) already in the workflow continues to reshape how audits are conducted, data is analyzed, and decisions are made. Already, one-third of tax firms are already using GenAI in their work, with 14% specifically using听, according to the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent听2026 AI in Professional Services Report.

For accounting educators, the question is becoming how fast and how boldly are they responding to marketplace needs by embedding advanced AI technology into their curriculum?

Building a curriculum the marketplace needs

Most schools benchmark themselves against peer schools, but , Director of the Dixon School of Accounting at the University of Central Florida (UCF) is starting with practitioners and employers to uncover what curriculum innovation is necessary to prepare his future graduates. In fact, when Dr. Thibodeau arrived at UCF two years ago, he made a deliberate decision to be innovative in his approach to inserting GenAI into the curriculum.

Instead of starting with the faculty, however, he consulted with employers who are hiring his graduates. Over a series of a few months, he led a team of 15 professors and lecturers who leveraged formal research interviews with 16 accounting practitioners, who were responsible for recruiting and hiring for their organizations. Dr. Thibodeau鈥檚 goal was to understand what employers are demanding for new accounting graduates.

What he heard led to creative changes within the curriculum. Through this consultation process, he learned employers need undergraduates in accounting who can think critically听through听AI output, interrogate it, challenge it, and ultimately exercise independent professional judgment about it.

From those conversations, Dr. Thibodeau and his team developed an AI competency framework which includes a “critical thinking milestone staircase” approach to measure progressive levels.

For example, Dr. Thibodeau says that one of the milestones is effective prompting. While this skill is a table-stakes capability, it is the foundation to learning how to query AI purposefully to get useful output.

Next 鈥� and perhaps the most critical skill 鈥� is the ability to transition from AI user to AI evaluator. At this stage, students learn to interrogate AI output, cross-reference it against authoritative sources, and recognize when a fluent-sounding answer is wrong. As Thibodeau notes, hallucinations are becoming less frequent as GenAI technology improves, but the risks of uncritically accepting AI output in a professional setting remain unacceptably high.

The next milestone is strategic GenAI problem-solving, which involves knowing what AI tools are best for which specific tasks and how to deploy GenAI within a larger professional workflow. “What’s going to give them the expertise to be that exceptional human-in-the-loop is to operate independently of the GenAI tool,” Dr. Thibodeau adds.

The delivery vehicle for this framework is a comprehensive case study that was built around a fictional theme park that spans across tax, cost accounting, and financial accounting coursework.

Building faculty support for curriculum innovation

The project required assembling a team of faculty members who were motivated by Dr. Thibideau鈥檚 vision to both insert innovation within the curriculum while offering meaningful impact and scholarship opportunities for his colleagues. To gain buy-in from his colleagues, Dr. Thibodeau emphasized their legacy with the chance to demonstrate with personal satisfaction that this creative approach will prepare students for the accounting profession鈥檚 future.

For faculty with scholarship requirements, he emphasized that this project could produce publications in top educational journals. Now, that vision is paying off. Of the five papers his colleagues produced, one has been accepted and the others are in various stages of the review process at the Journal of Accounting Education. There also will be six presentations from colleagues at the American Accounting Association’s Global Connect meeting this summer. As a byproduct, every faculty member involved also immersed themselves and improved their own skills in GenAI along the way.

Lessons for accounting programs

Dr. Thibodeau is candid about the current difficulty in assessing growth in critical thinking skills. In fact, the accounting department at UCF is experimenting and learning as they go. For example, an early attempt to use AI to grade students’ qualitative reasoning responses did not work well, and the current approach of using outcome-based indicators as a placeholder is imperfect, he acknowledges.

In spite of this, Dr. Thibodeau offers strong guidance for other accounting professors, which includes:

Keep studying how to teach developmental skills and evaluate judgment 鈥� Dr. Thibideau knows that this is a universal challenge at the moment at every university and for every organization that depends on the apprenticeship model. The routine tasks that built junior-level judgment organically are increasingly being absorbed by AI, and no one has figured out with certainty how to replace that developmental experience.

Require a CPA pathway 鈥� To close the gap on the technical side, the Dixon School has embedded a CPA review course directly into the master鈥檚 in accounting curriculum across all semesters to ensure students graduate with both the technical depth needed to challenge AI output and a clear path to passing the CPA exam.

Offer opportunities to develop skills that AI cannot replicate 鈥� On the human skills side, the school now runs six to eight professional skills workshops, which include relationship management, project management, agentic AI, and critical thinking. Indeed, these human skills were deemed necessary by the research done by the Dixon鈥檚 schools accounting practitioners, chiefly because AI cannot replicate these skills.

For other accounting programs watching from the sidelines, Dr. Thibodeau’s model offers a clear lesson on how to remain relevant in the age of AI. Indeed, proximity to practice is not optional. The schools that will produce the most sought-after graduates in the AI era will be the ones engaged in continuous, structured dialogue with the employers who hire them.

Further, curriculum innovation at this pace requires an institutional culture change that treats change as an opportunity rather than a threat. The curriculum must improve with it because continuous evolution is a baseline requirement. The schools that understand this now will produce the professionals who can best shape the AI-enabled future of the accounting profession.

You can find out more about how tax firms are managing their AI technology here

Key insights:

• • • AI adoption is now a talent retention and recruitment issue 鈥� Law firms that lack professional-grade AI tools risk losing both current and prospective talent.

    • Client relationships are increasingly tied to AI-driven value 鈥� Corporate legal departments expect their outside counsel to use AI to improve productivity, quality, and innovation; however, few believe most of their law firms are meeting those expectations.

    • Law firms must rethink their business and pricing models 鈥� Although many firms feel financial pressure to accelerate AI adoption, most have not adjusted their pricing structures to reflect AI-driven efficiencies.

Law firms are experiencing unprecedented pressure from the rapid advancement of AI, which is affecting their talent recruitment, client relationships, and business models, according to deeper analysis of the recent 成人VR视频听2026 Future of Professionals Report.

To help law firms navigate this AI-driven disruption, 成人VR视频 has published a new action paper, Future of Professionals Report 2026: Actionable insights for law firm leaders, drawing on insights from 736 law firm professionals and 203 corporate legal professionals.

Indeed, the new paper highlights that almost one-quarter of law firm professionals will refuse a job offer if the prospective firm lacks professional-grade AI tools. Further, any perceived misalignment between a professional鈥檚 AI preferences and the firm鈥檚 strategy increase the risk of attrition, especially among those professionals who value mentorship and skill development.

You can download your copy of the听2026 Future of Professionals Report听here

In addition, almost one-third of corporate legal professionals say they are reconsidering relationships with outside law firms that do not demonstrate how they鈥檒l offer clear AI-enabled value within the next 12 months, the paper notes. And clients increasingly expect their outside counsel to deliver efficiency, quality, and innovation through AI; however, only between 3% and 6% say they believe most of their outside firms are meeting each of these expectations.

Finally, almost 4-in-10 law firm professionals say they are feeling financial pressure to act faster on AI, yet almost two-thirds say their firm鈥檚 pricing structure remains unchanged despite clients鈥� demand for new models that reflect AI-driven efficiencies and increased value.

Dealing with AI-driven challenges

The paper notes that firms with approved AI tools are more attractive to talent, while the use of unauthorized “shadow AI” by more than one-third of professionals creates security and compliance risks. To address this, firms should provide transparent AI solutions and invest in training. While AI may reduce demand for some junior roles, it may increase the need for others, especially hybrid tech-legal roles.

On the client relationship front, many corporate legal departments are facing internal pressure to adopt AI and expect their outside law firms to keep pace. In-house legal teams increasingly expect AI-enabled productivity, quality, and innovation, yet many see a significant gap between expectations and delivery. For example, 70% say they expect productivity gains, while only 6% say they believe most of the firms they work with are delivering them.

Clients, for their part, also expect pricing models that reflect AI-driven efficiencies through greater cost certainty and transparency. Outside law firms that fail to adapt may risk fee pressure, ultimately losing business to more agile competitors.

Only half of professionals see their firm鈥檚 AI strategy reflected in their daily work, and this potential misalignment could cause talent and AI adoption problems.

Fortunately, amid all these challenges for law firm leaders, the paper identifies three strategic paths law firms can take, including:

• • • Using AI to elevate by automating routine tasks that would then allow professionals to handle complex, high-value work.
    • Using AI to scale by prioritizing productivity and efficiency and handling high volumes of routine work with AI and human oversight.
    • Using AI to reimagine by rebuilding the firm around AI and offering new models like outcome-based pricing and embedded partnerships.

Unfortunately, some firms are choosing to defer this crucial decision, which increases their risk of client and talent attrition as the market evolves.

Whichever path law firms take, however, the paper makes clear that firm leadership must clearly communicate their AI strategy.听The paper notes that only half of professionals see their firm鈥檚 AI strategy reflected in their daily work, and this potential misalignment could cause talent and AI adoption problems.

The paper encourages firms to move quickly to close the gap between client expectations, talent needs, and operational realities by defining a clear AI strategy, investing in training and tools, and adapting pricing models for an AI-driven market.

Using the guidance from this action paper, firm leadership can navigate these challenges and move their law firm into a more responsive, profitable, and sustainable AI-enabled future.

You can read a full copy of the听Future of Professionals Report 2026: Actionable insights for law firm leaders听paper here

Key insights:

• • • AI is now a talent and client expectation, not a differentiator 鈥� A large majority of tax & audit professionals regularly use AI, and many employees and clients now expect their firms to have strong AI capabilities.

    • Firms need to choose a deliberate AI strategy 鈥� There are three primary paths for AI adoption, and no matter which a firm chooses, the key message is that firms should actively define their AI direction rather than delay decisions.

    • Successful AI adoption requires governance and people-focused leadership 鈥� Beyond implementing technology, tax & audit firm leaders must establish AI governance, clearly communicate strategy, and align their AI with employee needs.

As AI adoption within the tax & audit profession accelerates 鈥� 81% of professionals say they are now using AI tools regularly 鈥� firm leaders are experiencing unprecedented pressure from talent, clients, and their firm鈥檚 own financial performance, according to the recent 成人VR视频听2026 Future of Professionals Report.

For example, retaining and recruiting top tax talent remains a critical concern in the profession, and AI has just ratcheted up the pressure even more. More than one-quarter of professionals say they would not accept a job at a firm lacking professional-grade AI, and almost 1-in-3 say they would consider leaving if their expectations for AI are not met within the next two years.

To help tax & audit firm leaders better navigate this fraught environment, 成人VR视频 has published a new action paper, Future of Professionals Report 2026: Actionable insights for tax & audit leaders, that provides practical guidance for navigating talent shortages, rising client expectations, and financial pressures, all within the context of the rapidly evolving technological environment.

You can download your copy of the听2026 Future of Professionals Report听here

Many tax & audit professionals surveyed say client expectations are rising, with AI-enabled quality becoming an important criterion for retaining outside tax & audit firms. At the same time, nearly half of respondents say they feel pressure to generate financial gains from AI, while one-third say their firms have yet to adapt commercial models accordingly. If left unaddressed, these pressures can compound, the paper points out, ultimately threatening a firm’s ability to attract and retain both clients and talent.

Finding your strategic path for AI adoption

Fortunately for those tax & audit professionals who feel overwhelmed by the strictures of advanced technology, the paper identifies three primary strategic paths for AI integration that could fit your firm, including:

• • • Using AI to elevate by leveraging AI to handle routine tasks, freeing professionals to focus on complex, high-value advisory work. Firms adopting this path aim to deepen client relationships and command premium fees that are based on expertise rather than volume.
    • Using AI to scale by focusing on productivity and using AI to increase capacity and consistency without increasing headcount. This path is particularly attractive for managing busy tax seasons and reducing recruitment strain.
    • Using AI to reimagine by rethinking the firm鈥檚 entire business model. Instead of periodic compliance, firms provide clients with continuous, proactive support and real-time insights, shifting from a service provider to a strategic partner.

A minority of respondents say their firms are deferring strategic decisions on AI, but the paper warns that any delay carries significant risks, especially as clients and talent expectations increase.

Universal priorities for firm leaders

Regardless of their chosen path, however, the paper outlines four priorities that every firm leader needs to address in order to succeed, including:

1. 1. 1. Govern the tools being used 鈥� More than one-third of professionals admit to using unauthorized AI tools, which greatly increases firms鈥� liability risks. Establishing clear governance, approving secure tools, and providing usage guidance are essential to mitigate these risks.
      2. Clarify the firm鈥檚 strategic direction 鈥� Firms must articulate their AI ambitions, internally and to clients, even if the path is not yet finalized. Understanding whether the goal is efficiency, expertise, or transformation can help guide decisions on tools, pricing, and hiring.
      3. Align AI with your professionals鈥� needs 鈥� Nearly half of professionals say they value work fulfillment as the primary benefit of AI, and a significant portion say they would consider leaving if their expectations go unmet. Engaging with teams to ensure AI deployment aligns with what they want is critical, whether they want more time, more complex work, or both.
      4. Define the role of early-career professionals 鈥� As AI automates more tasks, tax & audit firms must ensure that junior staff still receive the structured development needed to build professional judgment. Ensuring supervision before automation erodes these opportunities is vital for talent success.

As the paper clearly outlines, those tax & audit firm leaders that govern AI effectively, articulate a clear strategy, and invest in their people will be the ones best positioned to succeed in an increasingly AI-driven market.

You can download a full copy of the听Future of Professionals Report 2026: Actionable insights for tax & audit firm leaders听paper here

Key insights:

• • • AI adoption has become an urgent business imperative 鈥� Enabling corporate functions are under pressure from leadership, business stakeholders, and employees to demonstrate tangible AI-driven value.

    • Slow AI adoption creates risk 鈥� Many professionals are frustrated by limited access to high-quality AI tools, which contributes to increased employee turnover and growing use of unauthorized shadow AI

    • Success depends on coordinated transformation 鈥� Organizations need a deliberate AI strategy rather than scattered experimentation to help guide responsible AI adoption across the organization.

Today, internal corporate enabling functions 鈥� such as legal, tax, global trade, compliance, and risk 鈥� find themselves at a crossroads as they face mounting pressures from three critical fronts: i) internal stakeholders that are demanding faster, more informed decisions; ii) finance departments that are expecting AI-driven efficiency and cost control; and iii) a professional workforce eager for tools that enhance the value of the work they do.

The message from the C-Suite is clear: AI must deliver tangible results now, according to the recent 成人VR视频听2026 Future of Professionals Report.

To help internal corporate function leaders manage this pressure and move forward with confidence into an AI-enabled future, 成人VR视频 has published a new action paper, Future of Professionals Report 2026: Actionable insights for corporate leaders, drawing on insights from hundreds of internal corporate professionals.

Facing down the triple pressures

The urgency that corporate function leaders are facing is underscored by those three areas of pressure. For example, almost half of professionals surveyed in enabling functions say they are either already experiencing the financial consequences of lagging AI adoption or are expecting to within a year. Many enabling functions have long been expected to absorb growing workloads without proportional increases in resources. Now, AI is increasingly viewed as a way to expand capacity and improve efficiency, making delaying its adoption a potential source of budgetary and competitive risk.

You can download your copy of the听2026 Future of Professionals Report听here

Stakeholder pressure is equally intense. As many business units accelerate their own AI deployments, they expect the organization鈥檚 other enabling functions to keep pace. If these functions become bottlenecks, they risk being sidelined or being perceived as obstacles rather than strategic partners. Indeed, more than half of corporate professionals say they are facing significant pressure from stakeholders to act faster on AI, with in-house legal teams feeling this most acutely.

Yet the pressure coming from the workforce may be the most alarming. The action paper shows that fully 30% of professionals say they are considering leaving their organizations within two years if the gap between the AI-driven value they expect and what is made available to them isn鈥檛 addressed. Access to professional-grade AI tools has become a key factor in job decisions, yet nearly 6-in-10 professionals say they lack access. This gap contributes to both retention challenges and the rise of unauthorized AI use, increasing compliance and governance risks.

Choosing the right path

Faced with the reality of these pressures, corporate function leaders must choose a strategic path for AI adoption. The action paper outlines three primary trajectories:

• • • Using AI to elevate by shifting human effort to high-value, judgment-based work.
    • Using AI to scale by leveraging AI to handle increased workloads without increasing headcount while optimizing for efficiency.
    • Using AI to reimagine by rebuilding workflows around AI鈥檚 capabilities, such as implementing shared data infrastructure and real-time dashboards.

However, knowing the path is not the same as walking it. The action paper also highlights a potential execution gap, in which a lack of coordination and shared accountability across functions derails any real progress. This is a particular problem for enabling corporate functions because many departments often operate in silos, using different AI tools and standards, which leads to fragmentation and operational bottlenecks.

The solution, as the paper outlines, lies in building a shared framework for AI governance and accountability, with fiduciary functions like legal, tax, and compliance taking the lead. Some critical recommendations outlined in the paper include advocating for professional-grade AI tools, planning for an evolutionary journey through AI adoption, and leading an organization-wide conversation about AI governance and standards.

Finally, the paper encourages corporate leadership teams to step back from daily pressures and engage in structured exercises to define a shared vision for AI within the organization. By developing a long-term roadmap that considers processes, data, technology, people, and risk, corporate leaders can ensure AI adoption delivers both immediate value and sustainable competitive advantage for the future.

You can read a full copy of the听Future of Professionals Report 2026: Actionable insights for corporate leaders paper here

Key insights:

• • • GCs place increased importance on commerciality 鈥� Business enablement is becoming the fastest-growing priority for corporate legal general counsel, creating an opportunity for UK law firms to not only provide legal advice, but to help GCs demonstrate business value to their C-Suite.

    • Business savviness serves as a differentiator 鈥� When asked why they would select one law firm over another, the proportion of UK GCs mentioning business-savvy saw a marked increase in our latest report, as did the concepts of commerciality, knowledge of the client鈥檚 business, and knowledge of the client鈥檚 sector.

    • Understanding the business is critical in an AI world 鈥� Clients are largely ahead of their outside firms on AI usage and sentiment. As AI automates more routine legal work, successful UK law firms can provide additional value above AI output by translating legal advice into practical business guidance and better commercial outcomes.

The definition of what it means to be a successful law firm in the United Kingdom is expanding. No longer is it enough to simply provide subject matter expertise for clients, with good lawyering becoming table stakes to even be considered for a panel. Neither is it enough to provide this expertise in a cost-saving and time-efficient manner, as clients are increasingly expecting of all firms.

Today, clients are expecting their outside UK law firms to go further into truly understanding the client鈥檚 business proposition, according to the recent 2026 State of the UK Legal Market Report from the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI). And while efficiency and expertise remain top priorities, more corporate general counsel than ever before are rating business savviness and commerciality as key areas of focus. Clearly, GCs don鈥檛 just want legal advice from their outside firms, they want positive business outcomes.

Rather than provide an additional imposition on firms, however, forward-thinking law firm leaders in the UK will view this as an opportunity to stand out. Particularly in an AI-driven age in which low-level work continues to be automated, leaning into commerciality can offer lawyers a way to showcase their value while providing the positive business outcomes that clients truly desire.

Increased focus on enabling business processes

Client needs for outside counsel have evolved in recent years, simply because the corporate legal department itself has evolved. Business pressure has demanded that GCs turn their departments into a business enabler, rather than a cost center. And now corporate executives are measuring legal department success on how well it supports the rest of the organization.

Amid this pressure, GCs have seen mixed results. They have instituted a number of changes to their departments in recent years, leading to the development of corporate legal operations teams and an increased focus on success metrics that tie back to the rest of the business. And while 86% of global GCs say they believe their legal department is a significant contributor to organizational objectives, according to TRI interviews, only 17% of C-Suite executives agree. GCs are doing the work, but corporate executives aren鈥檛 seeing their preferred results.

In order to close that expectation gap, it鈥檚 unsurprising that GCs are doubling down on business enablement at the top of their agenda. When asked about their strategic priorities over the coming year, efficiency remained the primary focus for most GCs. However, business enablement represented the fastest growing priority, doubling its share of mentions to 27% of GCs in our latest research.

The definition of what it means to enable the business varies depending on the GC, of course. Some mentioned the need to enable business initiatives, others mentioned support specifically for M&A activities, while still others pointed to the imperative to meet changing business needs such as business innovation.

As a result, GCs are now increasingly turning their attention towards how their outside law firms can help with business enablement, and in doing so they鈥檙e shifting their criteria for choosing outside firms in the UK. When asked what drives favorability when selecting one firm over another, the proportion of GCs mentioning business-savvy rose to 37% in our most recent survey, compared to 31% from the year prior. Diving deeper into more specific sub-themes, the concepts of commerciality, knowledge of the client鈥檚 business, and knowledge of the client鈥檚 sector all saw increases in the portion of respondents mentioning those factors.

As the report notes, under real pressure to demonstrate their strategic value upwards, GCs are looking for external advisors that can help them meet their commercial goals. Those UK lawyers who want to stand out can begin by not only providing legal advice, but much-desired business advice as well.

The impact of commercial focus

Law firm leadership and partners in the UK have long said that they鈥檙e happy as long as their clients are happy. However, what does it mean for clients to truly be happy? That definition has shifted over time, and even has different permutations based on clients鈥� industry and geographic location.

When measuring their own success, UK general counsel place less emphasis on compliance & risk compared with their global counterparts, and less emphasis on cost & financial outcomes than do GCs based in the United States. Instead, UK GCs are heavily focused on quality & effectiveness, getting to the best outcome possible regardless of what it takes to get there.

UK law firms should be measuring their own success similarly. As the report notes, the ability to understand a client鈥檚 industry, strategic priorities, and risk tolerance 鈥� and then to translate legal advice into practical guidance for decision-making 鈥� has become central to how today鈥檚 clients select their outside counsel. Although work is cost-sensitive to a degree, law firms will ultimately be judged on their ability to deliver on high-stakes, bet-the-company matters, in which superior outcomes will outweigh marginal cost savings.

This is particularly true in an AI-centric environment. Previously, law firms were more readily able to compete on price for some low-level, repeatable work. Now, however, that work is increasingly being automated away. Clients are largely ahead of their outside law firms in both AI usage and sentiment towards AI鈥檚 impact on the legal industry, the UK report shows.

As the report notes, the ability to understand a client鈥檚 industry, strategic priorities, and risk tolerance 鈥� and then to translate legal advice into practical guidance for decision-making 鈥� has become central to how today鈥檚 clients select their outside counsel.

What’s more, corporate legal departments are becoming unafraid to use AI in those situations in which it makes cost-efficient sense with little legal risk. This means that law firms need to stand out not only from one another, but from the output that internal AI tools can provide.

Understanding the client鈥檚 business context can help provide this additional value, the report notes. That does not mean every lawyer needs to become a business consultant; but it does mean that firms must embed commercial understanding into the way they advise clients, staff matters, manage relationships, and measure success. Lawyers who can connect legal risk to business consequence will be better positioned to earn client trust, strengthen panel relationships, and demonstrate value in ways that AI tools cannot easily replicate.

As corporate legal departments in the Uk and elsewhere continue on their own path to become business enablers, they will increasingly expect their outside counsel to evolve with them. Those firms that thrive will be those that understand not only the law, but the client’s market, pressures, priorities, and definition of success.

In the UK legal market of 2026 and beyond, commerciality is not simply an added benefit 鈥� it is becoming central to what clients believe good lawyering looks like.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent 2026 State of the UK Legal Market Report here

• • • Collaboration is the strongest enabler of detection 鈥� Financial institutions are most effective at identifying human trafficking when they work closely with NGOs, law enforcement, and regulators, combining financial intelligence with victim-centered and investigative insights.

    • Data, technology, and AI can uncover trafficking networks 鈥� By analyzing financial transactions alongside open-source intelligence, social media activity, public records, and specialized datasets, organizations can identify patterns, relationships, and high-risk accounts more efficiently.

    • Financial institutions have a critical role in disrupting trafficking 鈥� Because human trafficking depends on moving and laundering illicit profits, banks and other financial institutions can help stop it by detecting suspicious activity, filing targeted reports, and supporting law enforcement investigations.

Human trafficking is not only one of the most devastating financial crimes but also one of the most complex as it cuts across fraud, money laundering, and organized crime, with some crime rings use their existing drug trafficking networks for human trafficking-related crimes.

Financial institutions are in a unique position to help battle this scourge as they can see the financial flows generated from human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Without the ability to launder the proceeds, human trafficking as a crime would lose some of its appeal.

To understand this better, a multi-city initiative around the FIFA World Cup, co-led by 成人VR视频 and , brought in leaders from financial institutions, law enforcement, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), regulators, and corporate risk departments to address human trafficking from a financial crime perspective.

Indeed, as research shows, forced labor in the private economy generates as much as $236 billion in , according to the International Labour Organization. If financial institutions can identify the proceeds of traffickers and their patterns, however, they can close suspected accounts, file prioritized suspicious activity reports, and notify law enforcement to help put a quicker end to this terrible problem.

The use of data and technology

Unfortunately, financial institutions often lack the context and the data points to act with certainty. These data points often include the names of victims, their behaviors, and their relationships with traffickers and can provide important clues about the origins and methods of human trafficking, including locations and transportation patterns. NGOs can help in this area; and such NGOs as the and already are providing critical, victim-centered insight.

In addition, NGOs often build datasets and proprietary content on their own to uncover trafficking. , for example, maintains a large, proprietary dataset that鈥檚 built from network metadata and behavioral signals collected from publicly accessible online environments. This data is then analyzed into real鈥憈ime intelligence, such as risk scores and activity patterns, which helps law enforcement identify and prioritize suspected child exploitation offenders.

Traffickers use social media platforms, online ads, and messaging apps to recruit victims and to advertise illicit services, often leave a digital footprint that can be analyzed, which enables law enforcement and analysts to identify victims, map relationships between illicit actors, detect recruitment patterns, identify locations, and uncover entire trafficking networks.

Other relevant information sources include the Illicit Massage Business (IMB) database from 成人VR视频 Special Services, which includes business accounts, the location, and the owner of every massage parlor in the US, in which trafficking victims are forced to operate.

Because traffickers use social media platforms, online ads, and messaging apps to recruit victims and to advertise illicit services, they often leave a digital footprint that can be analyzed. This enables law enforcement and analysts to identify victims, map relationships between illicit actors, detect recruitment patterns, identify locations, and uncover entire trafficking networks. This information can then be enhanced by combining it with public records and data from the open web, deep web, and dark web.

Learning the lessons of collaboration

As we at the ACAMS鈥摮扇薞R视频 Human Trafficking Initiative looked back at the lessons learned and reviewed best practices, we can see that any success in identifying illicit trafficking accounts is based on three factors: i) close cooperation with law enforcement and NGOs; ii) specialized investigative resources with human trafficking backgrounds; and iii) the use of data and open-source intelligence, either standalone or integrated into monitoring workflows.

Financial institutions understand their role and the need to obtain specialized data and expertise; and leveraging these capabilities typically results in the termination or de-risking of suspicious accounts.

Because collaboration with law enforcement is not consistent across financial institutions, particularly in the US, this means that overall, there鈥檚 a very uneven focus on human trafficking detection and prevention, depending on the availability of resources and the level of collaboration.

The role of regulators, like the U.S. Treasury Department鈥檚 , is crucial because these entities can leverage AI to act even more rapidly and connect information quicker, which can help disrupt human trafficking more effectively. Investigators are instructed to make a specific selection, field 38(h), when filing a report and include a specific reference to human trafficking. This will allow FinCEN to analyze and identify patterns, trends, and trafficking networks by linking these reports together.

In that context financial institutions have another reason to embrace AI within their customer data. By analyzing transactions and other patterns of risk using all available data sources and building agentic capabilities and workflows within their own customer data, financial institutions will be able to better identify high-risk accounts without carrying out labor-intensive investigations.

While this event series focused on the 2026 World Cup, human trafficking existed long before the tournament and will not stop once it concludes. However, if NGOs, authorities, and financial institutions can significantly improve their ability to detect and disrupt it, that would represent a major step forward.

You can find out more about how law enforcement and others are disrupting human trafficking networks here

Key highlights:

• • • Build on internal momentum rather than top-down mandates 鈥� Dean Kalb backed faculty who were already experimenting with AI, embedding shared learning outcomes into the legal writing program first before expanding to other courses.

    • Empower students to shape the school’s AI policy 鈥� Dean Kalb formed a 15-person student advisory group that surveyed one-third of the student body and produced AI principles that directly influenced school policy.

    • Create opportunities to get students collaborating with faculty 鈥� Efforts by Dean Kalb uncovered shared concerns of faculty and students, underscoring that students often know AI tools better than faculty and creating a co-learning opportunity in the classroom.

In her first six months as dean at the University of San Francisco (USF) School of Law, Johanna Kalb heard the same message from alumni across sectors: Those students entering law school today would step into a profession that looks meaningfully different from the one that exists now.

So, in her first move to translate that urgency into institutional change, Dean Kalb got behind those faculty members who had already started building toward that future.

Start with what is already in motion and invite others in

Dean Kalb started with the efforts that Profs. Nicole Phillips and Megan Hutchinson had already been doing by conducting their own experiments in their classrooms and building their own tools.

Dean Kalb鈥檚 first step mattered as a strategic choice. Rather than convening a task force or commissioning a study, she identified the faculty who had credibility with their peers and gave them resources and institutional backing. In this way, USF was able to embed shared AI learning outcomes across its legal research, writing, and analysis program in the second semester of the 2024-鈥�25 academic year.

The decision to focus on this program was deliberate because it built upon existing internal momentum and fit into the course鈥檚 existing goals. The structure of the legal research and writing program 鈥� with faculty having autonomy while supporting each other 鈥� also made the integration work by providing natural support.

Expand through optional workshops before adding mandates

Over the following summer in 2025, Profs. Phillips and Hutchinson ran optional hands-on workshops for the broader faculty. “Faculty learn from other faculty,” explains Dean Kalb. 鈥淭hey don’t want a vendor to come in and sell them. They’re not interested in having somebody from central administration try to tell them how they can teach better. But listening to a colleague who really understands the work that they do is very helpful.”

Indeed, some faculty showed up, were excited by the possibilities, and began integrating AI learning outcomes into their elective courses. This voluntary uptake created a visible proof of concept before any additional requirements or mandates were introduced.

Alongside the workshops, Dean Kalb also expanded AI learning outcomes into two required courses on evidence and professional responsibility. The professional responsibility inclusion was straightforward given the ethical dimensions of AI use in legal practice. One colleague, Prof. Tiffany Li, had already been building those outcomes into her section and was willing to share her approach with other faculty members who were teaching the same course.

Give students a formal role in shaping the direction

When USF rolled out access to the AI platform Claude across students and faculty, the response was more complicated than Dean Kalb anticipated. Feedback from students at USF 鈥� a Catholic Jesuit institution with a strong social justice identity 鈥� raised questions about AI鈥檚 social, environmental, and democratic impacts.

Dean Kalb intentionally chose to use the students鈥� feedback to involve them. With the help of another alum, who has deep experience in evaluating and implementing emerging technologies, Dean Kalb convened a student group to develop a set of draft principles for AI use at USF Law. The students conducted structured interviews with faculty, staff, and students, resulting in the creation of a survey in which approximately one-third of the student body participated. The student group drew on these results to draft a series of AI principles and presented them to faculty, staff, and other students. Ultimately, the principles were adopted by the faculty.

What came out of that process has already begun to shape the law school鈥檚 AI practices in concrete ways. For example, a faculty technology advisory committee with student representation has been formed to implement the principles to ensure transparency and ongoing oversight. The school also has begun exploring ways to engage with AI that reflect and enhance its social justice mission.

We now have a shared sense of where the community is and what our concerns are. That allows us to speak in a common language as we talk about why and how we’re doing this.

The more significant outcome, Dean Kalb says, was the discovery of shared concerns among faculty and students that AI would erode critical thinking rather than develop it. “That was probably the most helpful part of the whole process,” she says. “We now have a shared sense of where the community is and what our concerns are. That allows us to speak in a common language as we talk about why and how we’re doing this.”

Commit to sharing in the learning

Dean Kalb鈥檚 suggestion for her peers and faculty is to integrate AI tools into their own lives, which would allow them to better 听听听听听keep pace with technology that is moving faster than any curriculum committee can match. 鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to regulate and teach these tools in the abstract,鈥� she explains. 鈥淚鈥檝e found that playing around with them in my personal life 鈥� where the stakes are low 鈥� has helped me come up with ideas for their use at work, and that in turn, means that I notice their evolution.鈥�

For a profession built on expertise and the authority that comes with it, this mindset requires a particular kind of intellectual honesty. Some students are beginning to arrive at law school with more familiarity with AI tools than their professors, Dean Kalb adds, and this may offer an opportunity to shift the classroom dynamic toward co-creation, in which faculty and students are building knowledge together rather than transmitting it in one direction.

This change in perspective can, turn the stress of 鈥渒eeping up鈥� into the more enjoyable experience of collaboration, she says.

You can find out more about the impact of AI on legal education here

Key takeaways:

• • • The wash sale loophole is likely closing 鈥� For clients that have been harvesting crypto losses and immediately repurchasing the same asset should know that 鈥渨ash sale鈥� strategy may soon work exactly like it does for stocks 鈥� with a mandatory 30-day waiting period.

    • Non-compliant holders have a potential off-ramp 鈥� A proposed voluntary disclosure program would let clients that haven’t properly reported digital asset income to get into compliance with reduced penalties 鈥� but it鈥檚 only available for a limited time.

    • Staking and mining income treatment is changing 鈥� Proposed legislation would allow taxpayers to elect to defer recognizing newly minted digital assets as income, which could be a meaningful planning opportunity for active miners and stakers鈥� or a trap, depending on their situation.

Walk into any conversation with a cryptocurrency-owning client right now and you’re navigating the same awkward reality: The rules are genuinely unclear, have been unclear for years, and yet the IRS has increasingly expected compliance anyway. Now, however, the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee is trying to resolve that tension.

And crypto legislation is one piece of a much larger shift reshaping the tax profession and potentially impacting clients right now. The recent 2026 State of Tax Professionals Report from the 成人VR视频 Institute maps the challenges and opportunities defining the profession this year, including AI adoption, advisory pricing, talent constraints, and the growing gap between what clients want and what firms are charging for it.

Add to that list now, the changes coming for crypto asset owners and their tax, audit & accounting advisors.

New legislative changes for crypto owners

The package of crypto legislation 鈥� a collection of seven separate bills 鈥� currently under consideration by Ways and Means is serious enough that their tax advisors need to start thinking now about what it means for clients.

Some of these new proposals include:

The wash sale rule: A strategy that may be changing

Of all the provisions in the package, extending wash sale rules to digital assets will have the broadest practical impact. Currently, crypto investors can sell at a loss, immediately buy back the same position, and still claim the deduction 鈥� a strategy unavailable to stock investors. The proposed legislation would change that, applying to digital assets the same 30-day before-and-after window that governs stock transactions.

For clients with active portfolios, this isn’t just a planning consideration 鈥� it’s a recordkeeping one. Every transaction would need to be evaluated against a rolling 60-day window across potentially multiple wallets and exchanges. The change to this rule was hardly unexpected 鈥� the question was never really whether the wash sale rule would come to crypto, but when. Tax advisors should begin their honest conversation with clients by acknowledging that.

Mining and staking: A choice with consequences

For clients who mine or earn staking rewards with crypto, the proposed gives crypto miners and stakers the ability to elect to defer income recognition, which would treat newly minted digital assets more like self-created property than an immediate taxable event.

In practice, the calculus is complicated. Deferring income means the cost-based question gets pushed forward, not eliminated. If the asset appreciates significantly before sale, a client who deferred income recognition could face a larger ordinary tax event later. If the asset depreciates, owners have lost the ability to recognize the loss in the year of receipt.

Making the right choice 鈥� with the advice of a tax professional 鈥� depends almost entirely on the client’s individual circumstances, such as their marginal tax rate, their expectations for the asset’s trajectory, and their liquidity needs. This is exactly the conversation that tax professionals need to be having with clients around this issue.

The voluntary disclosure program: A limited window

Perhaps the most immediately actionable provision for many tax advisors is the proposed one-time voluntary disclosure program, which gives taxpayers who haven’t properly reported crypto income the opportunity to get into compliance with reduced penalties and a clean slate.

The IRS has run these programs before, and the pattern is consistent 鈥� the best terms are early, enforcement pressure increases after the deadline, and clients that wait because they hope the problem will disappear tend to regret it.

Simplification and opportunity

Not everything in the package adds complexity. would exclude gains or losses on network fees and regulated US dollar stablecoins by removing a reporting headache that has made crypto compliance so cumbersome for everyday users. And the Charitable Deductions for Digital Asset Donations Act would eliminate the qualified appraisal requirement for donated digital assets when market prices are readily available, lowering the friction on a strategy that has always made good tax sense for clients that holding appreciated crypto with charitable intent.

The tax advisors that will offer their clients the most value in a post-legislation world are the ones already holding these proactive conversations, and reviewing which clients have crypto exposure, identifying which may have unreported income, flagging which miners and stakers should be thinking about the deferral choice, and identifying charitable giving opportunities before the appraisal requirement disappears.

In addition, the voluntary disclosure program is the clearest example of how proactive advisory work can pay off. Clients that have quietly hoped their unreported crypto transactions would stay below the radar need someone to tell them plainly that a window for clean resolution is likely opening 鈥� and that waiting for it to close is not a strategy. That conversation is uncomfortable, of course, but it鈥檚 also exactly what a trusted advisor is for.

Beyond compliance, the considered package of crypto legislation creates the need to have genuine planning conversations that didn’t exist before. For example, the wash sale question is time-sensitive, and the staking deferral election requires modeling. None of this requires tax advisors to wait for final regulations; rather, it requires they know their clients well enough to know which ones have exposure, which have opportunity, and which needs a conversation they haven’t thought of requesting.

Right now 鈥� in the space between a Congressional hearing and a presidential signature 鈥� that is the most valuable thing a tax professional can offer.

You can download a copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚听2026 State of Tax Professionals Report here