Key insights:

• • • Multi-disciplinary teams unlock AI’s potential 鈥� Law firms must integrate a wide range of expertise, including technologists, process experts, and risk professionals, directly into client-service teams to realize the full benefits of GenAI.

    • Clients expect cross-functional expertise 鈥� Today鈥檚 clients value the assurance that law firms have robust technology, security, and process capabilities alongside legal skills, which takes multi-disciplinary teams from preferable to essential.

    • Sustainable innovation requires ongoing, real-world collaboration 鈥� Long-term success with GenAI depends on multi-disciplinary teams working together on actual client matters, ensuring solutions are practical and continuously improved.

Not surprisingly, generative AI (GenAI) already is driving profound change in the legal industry. Looking beyond the waves of hype, one reality is becoming clear: GenAI will reshape how legal services are delivered. In our view, the only way for law firms to excel in this environment is by bringing together the strengths of multiple disciplines from around the firm into a cohesive client-service model.

A paradigm shift in staffing

GenAI is dismantling traditional assumptions about professional roles. The familiar advice to think outside the box no longer applies, because, in this world, there is no box. Nor is there a map with a bright red X marking a clear destination. There is no manual, no single set of instructions to move from today鈥檚 practice to a pre-defined better future.

In this environment, lawyers standing alone cannot fully harness the power of GenAI. As 成人VR视频鈥� Future of the Professionals 2025 report put it: 鈥淭hose organizations that move quickly to establish new roles and rethink old ones will find themselves better able to hire the kinds of versatile, tech-savvy professionals needed to ensure their continued success.鈥�

To be sure, law firms have long drawn on the expertise of other professionals, in finance, marketing, IT, and more. Historically, however, those disciplines were rarely integrated into direct client-service teams.

The lesson is simple but powerful: Diverse perspectives and expertise produce better results.

That has begun to change. Firms are increasingly visible in their utilization of innovation leaders, research and development professionals, and technologists. Yet even these professionals often remain on the periphery of client engagement. The opportunity 鈥� and the necessity 鈥� is to embed them directly into the service model.

At Seyfarth, we took this step more than a decade ago with the creation of what is now Seyfarth Labs, an experimental unit designed to enhance client experience through technology. From the outset, Labs was intentionally multi-dimensional, combining software developers, data analysts, and lawyers-turned-technologists. We quickly learned that the greatest value was created when these professionals worked not only with each other, but also directly with the lawyers serving our clients, as well as with the clients themselves.

The lesson was simple but powerful: Diverse perspectives and expertise produce better results.

Why multi-disciplinary teams matter now

This lesson has only grown more urgent in the era of GenAI. Capturing the potential of advanced technology demands a breadth of expertise. A multi-disciplinary approach balances innovation (what the technology can do) with professional responsibility (what it should do). This approach also reduces risk, accelerates adoption, and ensures that tools deliver real value to both clients and law firms.

From the client’s vantage point, the multi-disciplinary approach isn’t just preferable, it’s increasingly expected. In-house legal departments are no longer evaluating their outside law firms solely on legal expertise. They’re asking harder questions: How does your firm protect our data when using AI tools? What governance frameworks ensure quality control? How do you measure ROI on technology investments? These questions cannot be answered convincingly by lawyers alone.

Clients want to see the team behind the technology: the legal technologists who bridge the gap between AI capabilities and legal requirements, the security professionals who can walk the client through safeguards, and the process experts who can demonstrate measurable efficiency gains. When clients understand that a firm’s AI capabilities are backed by genuine cross-functional expertise rather than vendor promises, trust deepens and competitive differentiation becomes real.

So, what does a truly multi-disciplinary model look like? Consider the following range of expertise:

• • • Lawyers 鈥� Practicing and former lawyers provide substantive knowledge to evaluate whether AI outputs are legally sound, aligned with professional standards, and ethically appropriate. Without this input, developers cannot determine whether tools are truly useful in practice.
    • Engineers & data experts 鈥� AI engineers and data scientists understand how these models function, how to fine-tune them, and how to mitigate risks such as bias, hallucinations, and privacy concerns. They can explain system limitations and design guardrails.
    • Knowledge management & process specialists 鈥� Simply bolting AI onto an outdated process produces nothing more than a faster bad process. Workflows must be reimagined, and AI integrated thoughtfully. Knowledge managers, innovation leaders, and process experts ensure that technology interacts effectively with precedent systems, document management, and knowledge bases.
    • Risk, compliance & security professionals 鈥� GenAI raises critical issues around information security, confidentiality, privilege, data security, and regulatory compliance. Risk experts can safeguard alignment with ethical rules (such as ABA Model Rules) and client contractual requirements.
    • Business & strategy leaders 鈥� Firm leaders, operations professionals, and business developers bring perspectives on client value, ROI, and competitive positioning. They can ensure that adoption is strategically aligned with both firm objectives and client expectations.
    • Change management & training specialists 鈥� Even the best AI tools fail without adoption. Professionals skilled in change management, training, and user experience design ensure that tools are intuitive, accessible, and supported by effective training so that attorneys and staff can work confidently with them.

From pilot to practice

Despite heightened interest 鈥� driven by both the pandemic and the rise of GenAI 鈥� skepticism remains high. Many lawyers hesitate to trust products built on unfamiliar technology, or to share control with those they see as non-lawyers. Indeed, lawyers want proof of value before adoption.

The answer to this skepticism lies in the teams that build and deploy the tools. If the proof is in the pudding, as we often say, then who is making the pudding? The answer? Multi-disciplinary teams 鈥� they are the ones capable of producing not just technology, but sustainable, trusted, and valuable solutions.

However, building multi-disciplinary teams is one thing and sustaining them is another. Many firms launch innovation initiatives with great fanfare, only to see them fade when initial enthusiasm wanes or when budget pressures mount. The difference between a pilot project and lasting transformation lies in integration.

Law firms have long drawn on the expertise of other professionals, in finance, marketing, IT, and more; historically, however, those disciplines were rarely integrated into direct client-service teams.

At Seyfarth, we’ve learned that multi-disciplinary teams cannot exist as separate innovation labs disconnected from daily practice. Instead, technologists and process experts must work alongside lawyers on real client matters, solving actual problems in real time. This embedded approach ensures that AI tools are designed for genuine practice needs rather than theoretical use cases.

This integration also creates natural feedback loops in which lawyers see immediate value and technologists understand practical constraints. When multi-disciplinary collaboration becomes part of how work gets done rather than a special project, sustainability follows.

Clearly, GenAI has become a transformative force that will shape the next era of legal service delivery. Law firms need to embrace the multi-disciplinary model by bringing together lawyers, technologists, process experts, risk professionals, business leaders, and change specialists 鈥� not in silos, but as integrated, client-facing teams. Those firms that chose do not do this risk being left behind.

The destination may not be marked on a map, but the path forward is clear: Innovation in law firms cannot succeed without collaboration across disciplines.

You can find more about how GenAI is impacting the legal industry here

Key highlights:

• • Human trafficking is a local problem 鈥� Contrary to the stranger danger myth, trafficking primarily involves emotional manipulation and targets vulnerable populations locally.

  • Prevention requires talking to men and boys 鈥� Discussions should be held about how online pornography, and the impact of their visits to strip clubs is furthering the sexual exploitation of women and indirectly fueling sex trafficking.

  • Human trafficking is a criminal enterprise 鈥� This enterprise is operating in the shadow economy, with profits that fuel the world’s second-largest illicit financial enterprise.

An estimated 50 million people are currently living in modern slavery globally, a stark reality often hidden in plain sight. Indeed, , established by the United Nations in 2013, serves as a crucial reminder that human trafficking remains one of the most pressing human rights challenges of our time.

A recent 成人VR视频 Institute webinar in observance of this day brought together experts from technology, survivor services, and law enforcement for a discussion to deepen the collective understanding of trafficking’s complexities, examine its devastating impacts on victims, and develop strategies to drive meaningful change.

Debunking myths around human trafficking

Human trafficking is often misunderstood, with common misconceptions including the stranger danger myth that most trafficking situations come from anonymous kidnappers. However, , CEO of , a nonprofit group helping law enforcement on the front lines of domestic minor sex trafficking, notes that trafficking often involves emotional manipulation by traffickers who target individuals from vulnerable populations, including youth without housing and children in foster care and juvenile justice systems.

, CEO of New Friends New Life, which provides comprehensive care to human trafficking victims, explains that between 95% and 97% of the survivors with whom she works are local. And, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), fraud and coercion are more prevalent than brute force in trafficking cases. In fact, traffickers frequently use and to exploit existing vulnerabilities.

Evolving approaches to combating trafficking

The fight against human trafficking requires a multi-faceted approach that involves cooperation of technology companies, survivor support organizations, and law enforcement agencies. More specifically, this approach can include:

Use and scale of technology 鈥� Boorse states that “technology has changed everything” in the anti-trafficking space and has made it easier for offenders to exploit victims. At the same time, technology is also providing opportunities for identifying survivors and offering support. Spotlight has developed innovative tools that help law enforcement and service providers identify trafficking situations and connect survivors with vital resources.

鈥淭rying to identify a child victim in this mound of data is like trying to identify a needle in a haystack, but we aren鈥檛 looking for needles, we鈥檙e looking for children,鈥� Boorse explains, adding that Spotlight leverages data and AI to help with the identification of some of the most vulnerable children. 鈥淲e aim to reduce the time it takes to identify a victim from months to minutes. The speed of identification has a direct relationship to recovery and reduces the amount of time a victim remains in trauma.鈥� With the help of technology, Spotlight has helped investigators identify more than 26,000 children.

Holistic approaches to support survivors 鈥� Comprehensive survivor support and compassionate care are key parts of the equation when stopping human trafficking. A model to mirror is the one used by New Friends New Life, which provides a range of services, including housing partnerships, emotional trauma support, and economic empowerment through job training and education. Davis emphasizes that rebuilding trust is crucial, and “the whole bunch of love approach” is essential in supporting survivors.

Collaboration with law enforcement and survivor care providers 鈥� The protracted nature of prosecuting human trafficking cases makes cooperation between law enforcement and those nonprofits which support survivors critical. Indeed, there often is a 24- to 36-month time span before the trial starts or the trafficker is convicted through a plea deal. This is a long time to keep a victim engaged, and this lengthy timeline can strain that engagement, especially given the trauma and instability survivors often face.

Because of this challenge, law enforcement relies heavily on robust partnerships with service organizations. The hyper-focus on the welfare and the well-being of the victim is key so that law enforcement can then focus on working with the prosecutors on the case.

In addition, collaboration on expanding awareness of traffickers鈥� recruitment methods in digital spaces is essential. And another key challenge lies in public awareness around the shifting landscape of trafficking online. More awareness and education in our schools and within our own homes are needed, primarily about how offenders use social media and other online platforms to identify and get their foothold on potential victims. Sadly, most minor victims 鈥� disproportionately over 95% 鈥� are recruited on Instagram, according to DHS.

Addressing root causes is key to prevention

Of course, the best way to prevent sex trafficking is to stop it before it starts, and effective prevention demands a multi-faceted approach starting with early intervention and addressing both vulnerabilities and demand. For example:

Give vulnerable minors love and acceptance 鈥� Boorse emphasized the importance of 鈥渓ooking back at the family unit,鈥� noting that 鈥渙ne of the most critical pieces is鈥� this feeling of being loved and accepted, obviously with appropriate boundaries.鈥� She argued that fortifying family and community relationships from early childhood onward can help build emotional resilience and provide children with the strong foundation they need to resist exploitation.

Addressing demand is equally vital 鈥� Human trafficking is the second largest and fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world, which means it is a business. 鈥淚f we are ever going to end this issue, we have to address the demand 鈥� and that means talking to our men,鈥� Davis states. More specifically, there is a strong need to educate men and boys about the impact of seemingly 鈥渘ormalized鈥� behaviors, such as consuming sexually exploitative online pornography or visiting strip clubs because 鈥渢hese normalized behaviors fuel a criminal industry,鈥� she adds.

Everyone has a role to play

Combating human trafficking is a collective responsibility that requires education and action from many sectors of society. Everyone has the opportunity to educate themselves and support organizations like Spotlight, New Friends New Life, and the . In addition, reporting suspicious activity to the DHS tip line (1-866-DHS-2-ICE (1-866-347-2423) or the at 1-888-373-7888, as well as advocating for meaningful policy changes in local communities are other ways to help.

Only through shared commitment and action, can we build a world in which exploitation no longer has a foothold and all people can be free from the devastating exploitation of human trafficking.

Learn more about human trafficking and human rights crimes through the 成人VR视频 Institute resource center.

Key takeaways:

• • • Higher polarization is seen 鈥� Stable growth levels contracted across all segments, forcing them toward polarized outcomes and eliminating the comfortable stability seen in 2024.

    • Not all firms were equal 鈥� While some law firm segments experienced a downward migration toward underperformance, others demonstrated an exceptional upward trajectory.

    • A buffer may be in place 鈥� Those firms seeing declining performance tended to concentrate on modest negative levels rather than experiencing severe downturns, suggesting that current market conditions are creating a buffer against sharper declines.

While the 成人VR视频庐 Institute’s Law Firm Financial Index rose in the second quarter of 2025 amid increase legal demand, the overall metrics suggested stability, with clients turning to their outside law firms for guidance. Indeed, the quarter looked unnaturally smooth.

Yet this surface-level tranquility masks a far more dynamic reality. We can examine how individual firms performed by calculating demand growth for each firm and grouping them into six buckets:

• • • severe decline (more than 10% decrease)
    • moderate decline (between 5% and 10% decrease)
    • modest decline (between 0% and 5% decrease)
    • modest increase (0% to 5% increase)
    • solid increase (5% to 10% increase)
    • exceptional growth (more than 10% increase).

When examining all law firm segments, the data distribution provides compelling evidence for a clear movement. The moderate increase range, which served as the stable foundation for law firm performance, experienced significant erosion as nearly one-quarter of firms were pushed out of this comfortable middle tier. The most notable trend shows industry dynamics driving firms toward two distinct outcomes: exceptional growth at the high end and modest decline clustered just below break-even.

Geography plays a key role in how firms are performing. More firms in the Northeast, Southeast, and Southwest regions are seeing strong growth, while firms in the Midwest and West are showing signs of slower performance and diminishing middle-ground results. Meanwhile, firms with international exposure faced volatility, especially among lower-growth ranges. Interestingly, this volatility seems to create a natural limit to how much performance can drop, helping some firms avoid more severe declines and show a measured response to outside pressures.

However, these overall trends hide important differences between law firm segments. Each group saw unique shifts, showing how similar conditions led to very different results depending on the firm鈥檚 size and market position.听

Am Law Second Hundred: Polarization at the extremes

The Am Law Second Hundred responded differently to today鈥檚 market pressures. Instead of moving in a single direction like other law firm segments, firms in this group were pulled toward both strong growth and weaker results. The middle range, which was once more stable, has narrowed, and its share has been redistributed across the full spectrum of outcomes.

Many firms that were growing exceptionally fast are now settling into more stable performance levels, suggesting that earlier peaks may not have been sustainable. Rather than abrupt changes, the general trend is moving towards a more stable pattern, albeit with a concerning rise in the number of firms encountering significant declines.

Midsize firms: The upward trajectory

While the Am Law Second Hundred showed a more balanced spread of results, Midsize firms moved sharply upward. Market conditions pushed many of these firms into top performance, with the number of high achievers more than doubling. At the same time, fewer firms struggled with serious challenges. What stands out most is that many firms jumped straight from steady growth to exceptional results, skipping the usual gradual progress.

Current industry dynamics have helped many Midsize firms move from moderate to stronger growth. This change wasn鈥檛 the result of a new strategy, but rather the outcome of earlier investments in talent that now fit well with today鈥檚 environment. Further, Midsize firms more limited international exposure, stronger focus on litigation, and lower rates may be contributing to this standout performance that has set them apart from the next group of firms.

Am Law 100: The downward drift

The demand growth data for Am Law 100 firms shows a clear shift in how performance is spread. The biggest change happened in the moderate growth category, in which nearly half the firms were pushed out of what used to be a stable zone. This shift shows that more firms are ending up with weaker results, while only a few are seeing strong gains. The number of firms with declining performance has increased quickly, and those doing exceptionally well are too few to balance out the overall drop.

The way performance is spreading across Am Law 100 firms shows that steady, moderate growth is becoming harder to maintain. Factors like international exposure, slower hiring, and changes in client needs seem to be pushing firms toward either strong results or weaker demand, with fewer staying in the middle. These conditions are making competition within this group more intense.

The legal market’s current reality

In the second quarter of 2025, the legal market continued to evolve, with different types of firms reacting in their own ways to changing conditions. While the LFFI rose and pointed to general stability, beneath that surface, many law firms are being affected by new pressures: stronger competition, a differing client mix, and overexposure to certain markets 鈥� all of which are creating a wider gap between top performers and those firms on the lower rungs.

Focusing clients at the center of business decisions is becoming more important for long-term growth; and each segment-specific pattern demonstrates how firms are finding different pathways to achieve this goal. For example, Midsize firms are doing well, likely because their flexible operations fit the current environment; and the Am Law Second Hundred is holding steady, showing that a mix of business models can help those firms adjust to outside pressures. Meanwhile, the difficulties facing Am Law 100 firms seem to come more from structural shifts and adverse operating conditions than from strategic missteps.

The evolving dynamics within the legal industry suggest increased fluidity. Whereas law firm financial performance in recent years has been influenced primarily by broad macroeconomic trends, current conditions are shaped by volatile policies and geopolitical developments, resulting in diverse business conditions across clients, regions, and industries. These shifts present both heightened risks and new opportunities, making it essential for leaders of law firms of all sizes to assess their positioning in preparation for potential challenges ahead.

You can get a fully copy of the 成人VR视频庐 Institute’s Law Firm Financial Index for the second quarter of 2025 here

Key takeaways:

• • • Proactive management 鈥� Law firms must adopt proactive project management strategies to effectively prioritize and align projects with evolving firm-wide strategic initiatives, especially in the face of rapid AI adoption.

    • Plan for the future 鈥� Consistent prioritization models and robust intake processes enable firms to better manage both planned and ad hoc projects, supporting long-term, multi-year goals.

    • Trust at the fore 鈥� Building trust across practice areas and creating a culture of collaboration are essential for successfully implementing successful project management strategies within law firms.

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland 鈥� One side effect of the explosion of AI within law firms is that, due to the portability of the technology, everyone wants a piece of the action. Whether on financial teams, business development and marketing teams, or lawyers themselves, technology remains top of mind for just about every function鈥檚 strategic planning into 2026 and beyond.

Naturally, this will cause some capacity constraints on various teams. IT will be affected, of course; and so too will security and risk management teams. However, there is one area that law firms may have already been struggling to build out that suddenly faces a crunch: project management offices. Suddenly, there are more projects to be done than ever before, and an office within the firm that may have been somewhat neglected before has been given increased importance.

So how can law firms bolster their project management capabilities and workflows on the fly? A session, Project Management: The Secret Edge to Strategic Planning at the aimed to advance the critical conversation around project management. Too often, the panelists said, law firm project management functions are stuck being reactive to pre-existing projects, rather than being proactive in determining how projects can be prioritized to align with larger firm strategic initiatives.

鈥淭hese projects are already happening. These lists aren鈥檛 driving strategic decision-making, they鈥檝e already been approved,鈥� said panelist Maura Whelan, Director of Project Management at McDermott, Will & Schulte. 鈥淏ut this is a mature practice in our industry, and we want to acknowledge that.鈥�

Picking priorities

For law firms to become more proactive about project management has to start with leadership asking a question that sounds simple in theory but is more difficult in execution: How do you prioritize certain projects over others?

There are a bunch of different potential methods to doing this, Whelen explained, adding that one way her firm has done this is through aligning projects with different firm strategic initiatives, then prioritizing those initiatives and ranking them from top to bottom. Project managers could also assign a 1 to 5 on value, or have a matrix of feasibility vs. impact, or any number of potential ways of categorization.

However, what鈥檚 important, Whelan said, is to have something that is consistent and universally agreed upon by firm stakeholders. 鈥淟ook for the model that works for you, evolve the model that鈥檚 best for your firm 鈥� but you need to have an agreed upon model,鈥� she said.

For law firms to become more proactive about project management has to start with leadership asking a question that sounds simple in theory but is more difficult in execution: How do you prioritize certain projects over others?

Once the firm has shaped the initial prioritization, however, that does not mean that the projects are set for the year. The panel noted that not only will firm priorities shift throughout the year, but pressing projects themselves too will rise. Cindy Etoh, Director of Project Services at Ropes & Gray, estimated that about 20% of the projects her team works on during the year are ad hoc projects that emerge after the initial yearly planning. As a result, she has quarterly planning meetings to go over new project requests with firm leadership, during which she鈥檒l discuss each project鈥檚 business case and assign a ranking score at that time.

Mary Nguyen, Director of Planning & Strategy at Paul Weiss, said her firm sees a similar percentage of ad hoc projects arise. Because the firm has instituted a strong intake process with past projects, her team doesn鈥檛 feel caught off-guard, Nguyen said, adding that the intake process 鈥渁lso helps us predict the work with some scientific backing to it.鈥�

With years of data now piling up, Paul Weiss is beginning to look at the project portfolio not even in yearly chunks, but in multi-year key goals and themes, she explained, noting that it鈥檚 a relatively new initiative, but it came to the fore particularly with large projects such as cloud migrations or AI implementations that could be hard to handle without long-range thinking. 鈥淭hat really prompted us to start thinking and planning in a different way.鈥�

Agents of change

It鈥檚 one thing to plan more strategically for a firm鈥檚 projects, and it鈥檚 wholly another matter to make sure that firm personnel are actually on board with those projects as they鈥檙e rolled out.

Panelists put forth the idea of portfolio change management as a potential balm 鈥� the idea that change management does not need to only happen at the project level, but as a portfolio-wide plan that can be portable across all projects now and in the future.

Nguyen pointed to recent developments in the cloud and AI, for example, that demonstrate two key reasons why traditional change management methods are not cutting it. First, the use cases are so vast and possibilities endless that project managers can show people how to perform the initial few steps but not necessarily know the outcome. Second, technologies are rapidly changing, so that for a full, firm-wide tech implementation such as launching Copilot, project managers need to update processes monthly instead of two or three times a year.

Panelists put forth the idea of portfolio change management as a potential balm 鈥� the idea that change management does not need to only happen at the project level, but as a portfolio-wide plan that can be portable across all projects now and in the future.

With rapid, unknowable change at the fore, Reesa David, Project Manager at legal service provider InOutsource, said one currency is more valuable than the rest 鈥� trust. She suggested having a project manager not only assigned to different practice areas, but a liaison that actually sits within those practice areas. 鈥淲hether it鈥檚 technical or non-technical, you鈥檙e able to translate those resource needs,鈥� David said, adding that will allow team leaders to break down silos when different groups have different strategies and different practices.

Cindy Fragliossi, Head of the Project Management Office at Fried Frank, agreed on the importance of trust and also noted that it can also be a reflection of firm culture. As the saying goes, she noted, 鈥渃ulture eats strategy for breakfast鈥� 鈥� meaning that all the planning in the world won鈥檛 mean much if the firm culture isn鈥檛 one of collaboration on new and existing projects. 鈥淵our [project management office] and its growth will be defined by firm culture and what its demands are,鈥� she added.

Indeed, there is a lot of change in today鈥檚 law firms, maybe too much for some; however, with proper proactive project planning and a strategy for getting stakeholders on board, project management does not need to be overwhelming. 鈥淕ood change management principles can help us all be more successful,鈥� added McDermott, Will & Schulte鈥檚 Whelan.

Register now for听The Emerging Technology and Generative AI Forum, a cutting-edge conference that will explore the latest advancements in GenAI and their potential to revolutionize legal and tax practices

Key insights

• • • Data analytics empowers full-population testing 鈥� Leveraging data analytics is enabling audit firms to move beyond sampling and achieve deeper risk identification, fraud detection, and process optimization.

    • Audit efficiency and client value increase 鈥� Audit firms are advancing through the use of automation, real-time dashboards, and analytics-driven insights that support strategic business advisory, not just compliance.

    • Successful adoption requires investment 鈥� Firms need to put their resources into technology, data governance, and auditor upskilling, which would position firms to lead in a future of continuous, AI-enhanced auditing.

Outside audit firms are experiencing a profound shift as data analytics becomes central to the profession. Leveraging advanced technologies to analyze entire data sets, rather than just samples, enables auditors to deliver more accurate, efficient, and comprehensive engagements. For firms committed to growth and innovation, the use of data analytics is a vital pathway to better risk identification, optimized fieldwork, and expanded advisory capabilities.

Strategic benefits for audit firms

Modern clients expect more from their outside auditors than basic compliance. They look for insights that can help them make strategic business decisions. The use of data analytics enables auditors to go beyond verification, drawing out meaningful observations from trends, anomalies, and key performance indicators. This approach allows firms to provide valuable advice on emerging risks 鈥� such as those in supply chains or revenue cycles 鈥� and pinpoint operational bottlenecks or cash-flow inefficiencies. By viewing audit data through a strategic, advisory lens, auditors can become trusted business partners that deliver value far beyond traditional compliance.

Indeed, audit efficiency also is significantly enhanced through analytics. Fieldwork, often the most labor-intensive part of the audit, is streamlined as automation handles the reconciliation of large volumes of transactions, invoices, and payments. Visual dashboards empower teams to quickly identify high-risk areas, focusing attention where it matters most, rather than relying on fixed checklists. This data-driven prioritization results in more focused audits, broader coverage, and reduced risk of oversight. The time saved can then be invested by audit professionals in addressing higher-order concerns or engaging in more meaningful discussions with clients.

Fieldwork, often the most labor-intensive part of the audit, is streamlined as automation handles the reconciliation of large volumes of transactions, invoices, and payments.

Further, by incorporating analytics into risk management, auditors can transform their ability to detect fraud and other irregularities. Predictive models can highlight patterns that warrant closer scrutiny, such as unusual journal entries or transactions that were processed at odd hours.

These kinds of anomalies are often missed by traditional sampling methods. In an environment in which regulators and clients are increasingly vigilant about fraud, having the tools to identify the early signs of risk not only strengthens audit integrity but also builds client trust and confidence in the firm鈥檚 capabilities.

Implementation considerations for audit firm leaders

Adopting an analytics-driven audit approach requires more than new tools, it demands a comprehensive strategy. Technology infrastructure must be modernized to support secure, integrated data management and visualization. Ensuring data quality is critical, as the accuracy of analytics hinges on structured, reliable client data. This means establishing protocols for data extraction and cleansing while working closely with client IT teams from the outset of each engagement.

Equally important is investing in people. Audit professionals need training not only in the use of analytics tools but also in the interpretation of data and the ability to draw relevant conclusions. New roles, such as audit data specialists or digital audit leads, are emerging as essential. Also, learning and development programs should integrate analytics into continuing professional development, fostering a culture in which data fluency is as valued as technical accounting knowledge. Cross-functional collaboration among auditors, data scientists, and IT specialists is quickly becoming the norm.

Another consideration? Client protection. With greater use of client data comes increased responsibility for ethics, security, and privacy. Firms must implement robust data governance, including strict access controls, encryption, as well as compliance with data protection regulations like the European Union鈥檚 General Data Protection Regulation or California鈥檚 Consumer Privacy Act. Transparent communication with clients about how their data will be used and protected not only ensures compliance but also strengthens the client relationship.

With greater use of client data comes increased responsibility for ethics, security, and privacy.

Forward-thinking audit firms already are embedding analytics into every aspect of their operations 鈥� from pricing models and engagement-scoping to client relationship management. By offering deeper risk assessments and real-time dashboards, firms can win new business and differentiate themselves in the marketplace. Further, automation drives efficiency, reducing the need for non-billable hours and enabling more competitive pricing. With scalable tools and processes, midsize audit firms now can take on larger, more complex clients, expanding their reach and capabilities.

In the long run, a reputation for analytics-driven insight makes a firm more attractive to both clients and top audit talent.

The road ahead: Continuous auditing & AI integration

The future of audit lies in continuous auditing, a process in which transactions are monitored in real time. The integration of AI and machine learning will enable predictive risk alerts, automatic anomaly detection, and context-aware report generation. Firms that invest in these advanced technologies now will be at the forefront of a new, smarter, and more strategic audit paradigm.

Data analytics is not just a technological upgrade 鈥� it鈥檚 a mandate for transforming how audit firms deliver value. By adopting data-driven approaches, firms can provide higher quality audits, richer client insights, and more resilient business models. Those who act decisively today will not only meet current audit challenges but also secure their place as leaders in the profession for the years ahead.

You can find out more about how firms are here

Key points:

• • • C-Suite priorities 鈥� C-Suite leaders are prioritizing customer satisfaction and retention as key measures of business success.

    • Leveraging internal metrics 鈥斕�Most corporate function teams currently emphasize internal efficiency metrics over customer-centric outcomes when adopting new technologies like GenAI.

    • Aligning functions with company goals 鈥斕�C-Suites are calling on their legal, tax, and risk departments to align technology strategies with customer-focused goals, such as investment in improved data flows and integrated workflows.

At their core, the purpose of all corporate functions (sometimes called enabling functions) should be to provide the outcomes that their business leadership needs. Sometimes those are simple problems, and sometimes they can be bet-the-company disasters. However, for in-house legal, tax, and corporate risk & fraud departments alike, company success should be the primary goal.

That then begs the natural question: What does success actually mean? Companies want to make money, while not spending too much money, and they want to accomplish their legal and financial goals in the most efficient and cost-effective ways possible. And by and large, enabling functions have become attuned to those realities, increasingly leveraging technology to perform work quicker, cheaper, and with more overall efficiency.

In reality, however, the definition of success is more complicated. Clients want a strong bottom line, of course, but according to the recent 2025 C-Suite Survey from the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI), there is another goal that鈥檚 top of mind among C-Suite leaders: customer satisfaction and retention. And unless legal, tax and corporate risk & fraud departments are aligning themselves to customer goals 鈥� and even more crucially, aligning their technology needs to customer goals 鈥� then they may not be achieving true success for their organization.

C-Suite definitions of success: Customer focus

It鈥檚 no surprise that C-Suites are focused on customers, of course; but there may be a misalignment between how much C-Suites want their business functions to focus on customers, and how much customer-focus those functions are actually doing. Past versions of the C-Suite Survey have found that while C-Suite leaders say they want their legal and tax departments to be more focused on customer-centric initiatives, legal and tax departments in actuality are more focused on risk mitigation tactics 鈥� even more so than their C-Suites desire.

This year鈥檚 version of the C-Suite Survey reveals similar priorities. While the financial bottom line remains paramount, most C-Suite leaders are also defining success directly via their customers. About two-thirds of C-Suite executives said they now include customer satisfaction in their definition of success, and more than half said they consider customer retention metrics.

Interestingly, this customer-centric focus does not only play out in conceptual definitions of success, or even primarily in the metrics surrounding success in the organization. Yet, this focus on customers directly impacts how C-Suites view their internal functions鈥� impact to the overall objectives of the company.

For example, when asked the extent to which certain functions contribute to the overall objectives of the company, in-house departments such as risk, legal, and tax all performed admirably, with more than half of C-Suite leaders saying they believe those departments to either significantly or moderately contribute to company objectives. Yet, the C-Suite still views some functions鈥� contributions with much more enthusiasm, with almost all (94%) of C-Suite respondents saying their customer success function 鈥� which often includes customer on-boarding, retention, marketing, and relationship management 鈥� significantly or moderately contributes to the overall objectives of the company.

Notably, however, it鈥檚 not just customers that catches the C-Suites鈥� attention. Ranking second is the technology function, which 90% of respondents say significantly or moderately contributes to overall company objectives. The fact that these two functions are seen as the top contributors (along with operations) is not an accident. Customer success and technology are increasingly intrinsically linked, with many C-Suite technology initiatives aimed directly at enhancing customer experience. As companies heavily invest in technology, they increasingly see their investment echoing what they believe customers want at the same time.

As legal, tax, and risk & fraud departments embark on their own technology journeys, it鈥檚 important for them to link technology initiatives to company objectives at large. And increasingly, that means not only thinking internally about technology use, but externally as well.

What it means for in-house departments of the future

When many professional services approach technology, particularly newer technologies such as generative AI (GenAI) and agentic AI, they often approach use cases that emphasize internal efficiency over any sort of external touchpoints.

For example, look at how these in-house departments defined success within TRI鈥檚 2025 Generative AI in Professional Services Report. Just less than one-third of corporate respondents said their departments currently were measuring return on investment (ROI) of GenAI tools in the first place, meaning that many departments have no idea how GenAI initiatives are performing or even how that connects to the rest of the business. Further, among those respondents that said their departments were collecting ROI metrics, internal metrics (cost savings, employee usage, employee satisfaction) are far outpacing any external metrics (client satisfaction, external revenue generation, new business won) within most departments.

Of course, many enabling functions would argue that they鈥檙e inherently internal, and that they should not be expected to interface with customers. However, respondents to the C-Suite Survey would likely counter that if legal, tax, and risk departments want to contribute to company success, they should be more focused on customers 鈥� that鈥檚 how C-Suite leaders are defining business success overall, after all.

So, what does a customer-centric technology strategy look like for corporate functions? A look into how C-Suites believe these functions are constrained may shed some light.

C-Suite respondents identified a number of different constraints on enabling functions, ranging from compliance & regulatory issues to the alignment of risk appetite. With respect to technology, however, one stands out: A need for more effective data and information flows. In fact, a majority (52%) of C-Suite respondents said they believe ineffective data flows are significantly or moderately inhibiting enabling functions.

This is one example in which legal, tax, and risk functions can bolster not only internal efficiency, but align with customer-facing business needs as well. Bolstered data collection abilities and creating more integrated workflows allows for quicker and more accurate answers to customers, more complete financial information for reports and tax returns, and better overall decision-making around customer initiatives with more comprehensive data in mind.

There are other ways for enabling functions to be customer-centric with their technology as well, of course; but the overall goal is to be actively contributing to the C-Suite鈥檚 idea of success, and that means keeping customers top of mind when developing a technology strategy.

鈥淚t is clear that C-Suite leaders have established priorities for their businesses and measures for success. It is equally clear that many of the enabling functions could do a better job of working towards these broader corporate objectives,鈥� the report states. 鈥淚n digital transformation and AI, C-Suite leaders may have found the tools to mitigate or perhaps remove constraints from the organization鈥檚 enabling functions, ultimately helping those functions make more substantive contributions toward the organization鈥檚 overarching goals.鈥�

You can download a copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent听2025 C-Suite Survey听here

In the United Kingdom, for example, the Revenge Porn Helpline in reports in 2023, compared to the previous year. Sextortion remained the predominant concern and made up more than one-third (34%) of all cases. The data reveals that overall, there was a 54% increase in sextortion cases compared to 2022, highlighting a concerning pattern that hasn鈥檛 been seen since 2021.

In the United States, the data is a little dated but double-digit increases too are suggested. In 2016, , reported being victims of nonconsensual pornography. A larger , showing 鈥� all in the space of just three years.

Given the rise in the use of generative AI to create deep fakes, it is easy to surmise that cases of IBSA will continue to be on the rise for some time.

Improvements in legal landscape on the horizon in the US

Obtaining justice for victims of IBSA around the world is no easy task. Only about a concerning IBSA as of 2018. In addition, prosecuting offenders in the US up until now has been a patchwork of local and state laws. Indeed, 48 states plus the District of Columbia and Guam .

The good news is that change is on the horizon with the bill known as the or the TAKE IT DOWN Act that was passed on April 28 and signed into law in late May.

The new law prohibits the intentional disclosure of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including digital forgeries. It amends Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to criminalize the publication of such depictions without consent, especially if the images are intended to harm or result in harm, including psychological, financial, or reputational damage.

Join us for a free online Webinar: World Day Against Trafficking in Persons to learn more about the complexities of human trafficking, the impact on victims, and effective strategies for prevention and intervention

The Act also defines key terms, such as identifiable individual, and intimate visual depiction, which are important concepts to enforce the bill. For example, an identifiable individual is someone who appears, in whole or in part, in an intimate visual depiction and whose face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic (such as a unique birthmark or recognizable feature) is displayed in connection with such depiction. And an intimate visual depiction carries the meaning given in section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, which includes visual representations involving nudity or sexually explicit conduct.

In addition, the bill establishes penalties for offenses involving both adults and minors. For adults, violations can result in fines or imprisonment of up to two years; while for minors, the penalties increase to fines or imprisonment of up to three years. Exceptions to the prohibition include lawful activities by law enforcement and disclosures made in good faith for legitimate purposes such as legal, medical, or educational needs.

The Act also mandates covered platforms, including websites, services, or applications serving the public with user-generated content, to establish a notice and removal process for nonconsensual depictions. Platforms must remove such content within 48 hours of a valid request and are protected from liability for good faith removal actions. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is empowered to enforce compliance, treating violations as unfair or deceptive acts.

More action to protect potential victims needed

Research into the negative impacts of victims is significant. Among IBSA victims, 93% experienced considerable emotional distress, and 82% faced substantial challenges in social, work, or other vital aspects of their lives, according to the . Meanwhile, just more than half (51%) of victims revealed they had contemplated suicide. Additionally, 55% were concerned about their professional reputation being damaged due to IBSA, and 39% reported that it had negatively impacted their career.

These negative implications point to the need for additional measures beyond legal avenues to safeguard potential victims. One area in which there is a large need is building awareness among adults under 40, which of IBSA cases. This is especially true because people in this age range have .

Likewise, increasing education for caregivers and parents in order to better prevent their children from becoming victims is also critical. Resources such as 成人VR视频鈥� Safe Settings campaign and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security鈥檚 are great examples of awareness-building campaigns.

In particular, caregivers should protect their children by teaching them about the risks of sharing personal or inappropriate content online and the lasting nature of digital information. They should also guide them on how to set up privacy controls on mobile apps, recognize online predators, and find trusted adults for support. Parents should also stress the consequences of sexting and cyberbullying and emphasize that sharing sexual abuse material is illegal.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act represents a significant step forward in the fight against IBSA and digital exploitation, offering new legal avenues to protect victims and hold offenders accountable. However, legal measures alone are not enough, and continued efforts in education and awareness are essential to prevent future occurrences, empower potential victims, and foster a safer online environment for everyone.

You can find out more about the ways to strengthen online privacy rights here

Safeguarding children’s data and online privacy is challenging due to the existing fragmented legal framework, which consists of various federal and state laws with differing methods and restrictions. Even so, there are ways to address these gaps, says , Partner in the cybersecurity and data privacy litigation practice at Mayer Brown.

Understanding the current federal and state legal landscape

鈥淭he current legal landscape aiming to protect children’s data and online privacy is a complex patchwork of federal and state laws, each with distinct approaches and limitations,鈥� says Thomson. At the federal level, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is the cornerstone legislation and is enforced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). COPPA primarily targets websites and online services directed at children under 13 years of age and mandates parental consent for the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. Despite its foundational role, COPPA has faced criticism for its limited age scope and challenges in enforcement.

On the state level, Thomson notes that there has been a notable surge in initiatives to enhance children’s privacy protections. California, for example, leads with the California Consumer Privacy Act and its successor, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which extend privacy safeguards to minors under 18. This trend has inspired other states to enact similar laws, focusing on regulating children’s data, particularly in connection with social media.

Join us for a free online Webinar: World Day Against Trafficking in Persons to learn more about the complexities of human trafficking, the impact on victims, and effective strategies for prevention and intervention

These state laws often include provisions for age-appropriate design codes and “harmful content age verification” laws, which aim to shield children from potentially damaging online content. However, these efforts sometimes face opposition on grounds of infringing on free speech rights, highlighting the ongoing tension between privacy protection and other legal considerations.

At the federal legislative level, efforts to strengthen children’s online safety have seen mixed success. Initiatives like the Kids Online Safety Act have been proposed to address broader online safety issues, although many such efforts have not yet been passed into law. Recent U.S. Senate hearings have continued to highlight the need for comprehensive federal action.

The challenge remains to harmonize these federal and state efforts to ensure consistent and effective protections for children’s data privacy across the United States. Such enhancements to current protections could include standardizing age definitions, increasing parental control, imposing stricter penalties for non-compliance, and improving education and awareness about online privacy risks. These measures, combined with potential international collaboration, could help close existing gaps and create a more cohesive legal framework to protect children online.

Areas of commonality and divergences

The current legal landscape protecting children’s data and online privacy reveals several important commonalities across jurisdictions. Most prominently, there is widespread recognition that children deserve special privacy protections beyond those afforded to adults, according to Thomson. For example, laws at both federal and state levels requiring parental consent mechanisms for data collection from younger users demonstrate this special protection.

Another common thread is the growing emphasis on privacy by design principles, which requires online services to build child safety and privacy considerations into their products from inception rather than as an afterthought. Additionally, there is increasing consensus that certain exploitative design features which may target children should be restricted, with many laws limiting data retention periods and collection practices.

Despite these commonalities, Thomson points out that significant divergences create a fragmented regulatory environment. Perhaps most problematic is the inconsistent definition of child across jurisdictions. Indeed, COPPA applies to children under 13 only, while state laws like California’s CPRA extend protections to minors under 18. This creates compliance challenges for companies operating across multiple states.

The challenge remains to harmonize these federal and state efforts to ensure consistent and effective protections for children’s data privacy across the United States.

Another key divergence lies in the scope of covered entities. While some laws apply only to child-directed services, others extend to general audience websites that are likely to be accessed by children. Enforcement mechanisms also vary, with some laws relying primarily on regulatory action while others provide private rights of action.

These inconsistencies create regulatory gaps that sophisticated companies and bad actors can exploit, which clearly underscores the need for more harmonized approaches to children’s data protection that can keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies and business models that target young users.

How to close the fragmented legal landscape

To strengthen protections for children’s data privacy and close existing gaps, Thomson explains that a comprehensive approach at both federal and state levels is necessary, which specific steps including:

Establish a consistent age definition 鈥� A uniform age definition should be established across all jurisdictions to ensure consistent application of privacy protections. This would address the current discrepancies under which federal and state laws currently operate.

Improve monitoring tools for parents 鈥� Additionally, enhancing parental control mechanisms, such as developing more user-friendly tools, would allow parents to monitor and manage their children’s online activities effectively.

Expand the scope of protections of personal information 鈥� Specific efforts to reduce the exploitation of children online should include expanding the definition of personal information to encompass biometric data, reflecting the growing use of such data in digital services.

Improve transparency to parents 鈥� Require companies to provide clear, detailed disclosures about their data collection practices and any third-party sharing. This would help parents and guardians make informed decisions about their children鈥檚 digital interactions.

Strengthen consistent protection across geographies 鈥� Establishing global standards for children鈥檚 data privacy through international collaboration can also play a significant role in providing consistent protection across borders.

The splintered legal landscape protecting children’s data privacy creates regulatory gaps that sophisticated companies and illicit actors can exploit. As the digital world continues to evolve, it is imperative that lawmakers and regulatory bodies work together to establish a more cohesive and comprehensive framework for protecting children’s online privacy 鈥� one that will prioritize their safety, well-being, and rights in the face of increasingly complex technological advancements.

You can find out more about how organizations and individuals can fight against child exploitation both online and in the real world here

On April 2, President Donald J. Trump announced the most sweeping tariffs since the 1030s, impacting all United States trading partners. Now, as the world adjusts amid tariff retaliation likely coming from several countries, the issues of trade, tariffs, and their implication on corporate tax departments will continue to be to have a significant impact in the coming months and years.

Yet, even before this announcement, tariffs were the topic of numerous discussions in several sessions at the recent Tax Executives Institute 2025 Midyear Conference. Indeed, the ongoing proposed tariffs among the United States and some of its key trading partners now have multinational companies scrambling at a heightened degree. In this environment, corporate tax leaders are not only seeking to understand how their businesses should respond, but also how to remain in compliance and what new strategies are needed to optimize their businesses鈥� tax liabilities while simultaneously enhancing operational efficiency.

Foreign tax policies that may be impacted due to tariffs

There are several tax policies that are likely to be strongly impacted by the ongoing tariff dispute, including:

Pillar 1 and digital services taxes

An increasingly central component of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development鈥檚 (OECD鈥檚) Pillar 1 is the . The OECD in partnership with the G20 formed a coalition to create a single set of agreed-upon international tax rules to prevent businesses from shifting their profits to certain tax jurisdictions in efforts to minimize tax liabilities. The OECD and G20 felt the rule was needed given the global digital economy creating a framework for how taxes can be assessed beyond the traditional systems (which typically involved an organization paying taxes in those jurisdictions in which it had a physical presence). In 2017, the European Commission lead the charge with its introduction of digital services taxes marking a pivotal shift in how digital revenue is taxed.

As of 2024, there are about 20 countries that have implemented digital services taxes. On February 21, President Donald J. Trump issued signaling his Administration鈥檚 plan to 鈥渢ake action regarding tax and regulatory measures .鈥� As the Trump considers extending tariffs to the European Union, some EU member nations are reconsidering on digital services taxes on US-based tech companies. a financial bill, which went into effect April 1, that removes their digital services taxes.

Pillar 2

A key part of the OECD鈥檚 Global Anti-Base Erosion Model Rules (GloBE), Pillar 2, was agreed to by more than 135 jurisdictions. In 2021, these jurisdictions pledged to update and modernize their international tax systems to better reflect a global digital economy, including establishing a global minimum tax. On January 20, on his first day in office of his second term, President Trump withdrew the US from the OECD鈥檚 and suggested imposing retaliatory that impose a global minimum tax on US businesses.

US responses: Section 899 and tariffs

In response to what鈥檚 perceived as international tax challenges, the US has proposed (the Defending American Jobs and Investment Act), which imposes additional taxes on the US income of foreign individuals and entities from jurisdictions that have extraterritorial or discriminatory taxes, such as the OECD鈥檚 Pillar 2 undertaxed profits rule or digital services taxes. The tax would increase by 5% each year for four years, culminating in a 20% additional tax annually.

Furthermore, Section 899 includes treaty override language, which would deny these foreign entities and individuals the benefit of reduced withholding taxes under any treaty with the United States. This provision is intended to reinforce the OECD Global Tax Deal Executive Order and counteract foreign measures perceived as undermining US economic interests.

What should corporate tax departments do?

There are several actions that corporate tax departments can take now to help them navigate the current environment, including:

Scenario planning and strategic decision-making

For corporate tax departments, tax planning and tax modeling has always been an essential component of determining their companies鈥� financial strategy. With additional considerations of tariff and trade wars, that planning becomes even more essential. In-house tax departments now must be able to fine tune their scenario planning to not only anticipate but quickly pivot when new information becomes available.

Departments also will need to have several models that can be changed and adjusted so that a clear picture of how their businesses may mitigate the impact of tariffs on operations. For example, understanding what counts as manufacturing rather than assembly, and where these activities take place, can influence tariff rates and eligibility for trade agreements. Tax professionals must weigh the trade-offs between income tax and tariffs, considering the overall tax burden and operational efficiency of their companies.

Collaboration and strategic alignment

Corporate tax departments must collaborate with various business units within their organizations to ensure strategic alignment in managing trade and tariffs. This involves working with supply chain teams to optimize classifications and origins, exploring opportunities for tariff reduction, and understanding the implications of manufacturing and assembly decisions.

As businesses around the globe navigate what some might say is a new era in trade and tariffs, it is the corporate tax departments that will play a pivotal role in helping businesses manage the impact of trade and tariffs on their operations. Department leaders who are able to leverage their people and technology to keep up with the rapid changes will be able to optimize tax strategies and ensure compliance in the jurisdiction in which their businesses operate.

You can download a copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚听

This article is the first in an ongoing series titled ““, by Maya Markovich in consultation with the 成人VR视频 Institute. This series aims to not only explore how justice technology fits within the modern legal system, but how technology companies themselves can scale as businesses while maintaining an access to justice mission.

Mission-driven legal technology providers 鈥� often called justice tech providers 鈥� and legal service organizations (LSOs) share a fundamental commitment to expanding access to justice for all individuals. While both aim to provide essential legal information and support to those in need, they each operate with distinct cultures and approaches.

Recognizing and understanding these differences can help these organizations collaborate more effectively, ultimately leveraging their collective expertise to better serve people seeking legal assistance.

This shared mission drives LSOs and justice tech companies to meet clients where they are, whether through community-based clinics or digital platforms. Working with limited resources, both have developed strategies to maximize their impact through creative solutions 鈥� and collaboration is a natural extension of their shared mission for justice equity.

Finding shared values in legal services

LSOs bring decades of community trust and deep systemic knowledge to their work. Through direct service, they’ve built strong relationships with clients, courts, and community partners. Their comprehensive understanding of legal systems comes from daily navigation of these complex procedures on behalf of vulnerable populations. However, they cannot serve everyone who seeks their help 鈥� due to limited capacity, matter type, or other reasons.

Justice technology providers complement the traditional strengths of LSOs with innovative approaches. Their focus on user-centered design and client outreach brings fresh perspectives to legal service delivery, while their ability to rapidly iterate on solutions enables quick adaptation. Often, justice tech founders have lived experience with the problems they鈥檙e seeking to solve and are similarly plugged into their communities. Their broad understanding of legal challenges and use of technology to scale support helps bridge the justice gap for legal aid clients as well as the often-overlooked middle-income population that may be seeking legal recourse.

Navigating partnership challenges

Despite complementary strengths and mission alignment, partnerships between LSOs and justice tech organizations can face challenges.

Time constraints affect both parties: LSOs are often stretched thin, serving as many immediate client needs as possible with little bandwidth to experiment; meanwhile, tech organizations face pressure to develop, test, and deploy solutions quickly. With LSOs typically moving deliberately due to institutional restrictions and tech organizations moving fast to deliver their best products through rapid iteration, different organizational paces can create friction in joint projects.

Further, funding constraints and different financial models can misalign partnership expectations and jurisdictional complexities, while regulatory hurdles can often complicate implementation of tech across regions. Sadly, it is frequently the simple lack of awareness about potential partnerships that prevents promising collaborations.

5 essential tips

These 5 recommendations for justice tech companies to build meaningful collaborations with LSOs are drawn from listening sessions with LSOs in 2024.

1. Authentically present yourself

A long-term commitment to access to justice principles demonstrates alignment with LSO values. Justice tech firms should communicate their genuine passion for solving legal access problems, not merely as a professional or company goal, but as the North Star that motivates their work to bridge the justice gap through technology.

For a justice tech leader, sharing your path to justice technology is a powerful way to connect and build trust. Highlight relevant background and experience that uniquely positions you to solve the problem, including your technical expertise, and how and why you built your solution and selected your team.

2. Practice radical product transparency

LSOs are stretched for time and operate on scant resources. They are also justifiably concerned about running up against boundaries that could jeopardize their funding. As a justice tech leader, you should distinguish clearly between the legal information and advice your products and services provide. Be transparent about what your product can do today, and what you鈥檙e working on building toward in the future.

Unrepresented people are often subjected to predatory practices, and LSOs can rightfully be fiercely protective of their clients, so trust concerns may emerge around data security and client privacy. Address data concerns proactively and provide comprehensive explanations of data privacy practices. Outline clear data-sharing policies and document your security measures.

It is also critical to validate the impact your product may have in order to encourage LSOs to invest in technology that scales. Share your data, demonstrate your focus on measurable outcomes, and propose success metrics that will measure progress for both organizations.

3. Build strong relationships

Trust is essential. LSOs are more apt to invest in building external partnerships that have worked successfully with peers, so tech leaders should actively work to build goodwill and cultivate positive references now. They should engage their advisory board members as advocates and connectors, ask for feedback after connecting with non-profits and government agencies, and document client success stories.

Maintaining clear communication is also critical, so leaders should practice responsive engagement, use clear and jargon-free language, and document commitments and follow-through. Demonstrate reliability with consistent follow-up, adherence to deadlines, and addressing concerns promptly.

4. Research non-profits, generally and specifically

Understanding the dynamics of non-profits means accounting for unique funding cycles, grant report deadlines, and budget constraints. Navigating their processes requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges resource limitations and recognizes the complex ecosystem in which these organizations operate. Justice tech companies that are non-profits themselves may be more familiar with these issues, but for-profit companies may need to take time to familiarize themselves with the non-profit model and its key stakeholders.

Effective partnerships also require thorough due diligence on the specific non-profit of interest. By carefully examining financial documents, studying annual reports, and researching funding sources, justice tech startups can gain crucial insights into an LSO鈥檚 financial health, mission, and operational capabilities.

5. Ensure long-term sustainability and reliability

Technology partnerships in legal services require more than an initial connection 鈥� they need a strategic approach to sustainability and support. Justice tech companies should design smooth handoff processes that promote intuitive knowledge transfer supported by comprehensive documentation. Robust training resources ensure that LSOs and tech providers can fully leverage new systems, bridge potential skill gaps, share resources, work to each organization鈥檚 strengths, and empower teams to use technologies effectively. Successful collaborations should focus on creating seamless transitions that minimize disruption and maximize ongoing stakeholder value.

Readying for the long journey

Successful partnerships among justice tech firms and LSOs are built on trust, transparency, and a shared commitment to expanding legal access. These collaborations transform potential connections into powerful opportunities to advance justice equity by creating lasting value for both organizations and the communities they serve.

If you鈥檙e currently operating in the state of North Carolina or building toward that market, consider applying to collaborate with . For more information about mission-focused legal tech, visit the and the