Key highlights:

• • • Three emerging business models, one unresolved tension听鈥� AI is compressing time, which directly threatens the logic of billing by the hour, but the smartest law firms are not waiting for a winner to emerge before building their strategic foundation.

    • Technology strategy and talent strategy are the same conversation 鈥� The talent model must be designed in tandem with the business model, even amid uncertainty, because many of the structural conditions of legal work are changing all at once.

    • The next great lawyer will lead with human skills, not tool proficiency听鈥� Forward-thinking firms are doubling down on their lawyers鈥� curiosity, judgment, client skills, and relationship-building as these capabilities are those that AI cannot replicate.

Every law firm is asking how AI will change the way legal work gets done; but , Chief Legal Operations Officer at , is asking a more consequential question: How will AI change the way legal work gets听paid for?

Planning around 3 law firm business models in the AI era

AI is making law firms more efficient, of course, but efficiency alone does not answer the harder question of how to capture value and how AI-enabled legal services get priced. Olson Bluvshtein sees three paths emerging in law firms:

1. 1. 1. Billable-hour (still) 鈥� The first is the path of least resistance. Firms stay anchored to the billable hour, raise rates, and use AI to move faster and handle more volume, with the idea that more volume will make up the revenue losses of faster work. With this model, however, the client-firm incentive misalignment remains intact, and the fundamental tension between billing for time and AI compressing that time never gets resolved.
      2. Value-based pricing 鈥� The fixed fee pathway also is likely to gain further traction, as it鈥檚 one that many AI-native law firms are pursuing. In this model, value-based pricing creates a natural meeting point between firm and client interests because when incentives align, everyone wins, Olson Bluvshtein explains.
      3. Frontier models rule 鈥� The third scenario is more speculative but worth watching. As foundational models improve, the need for expensive legal-specific tools may diminish. “I could see a scenario in the future in which we don’t necessarily need all the legal-specific tools that are out there,” she says. Even though technology costs historically come down, cheaper tools do not make the business model question disappear, Olson Bluvshtein notes.

Candidly, Olson Bluvshtein admits that 鈥渢he truth is probably somewhere in the middle,” and the firms best positioned for any of these futures are the ones building the strategic and operational foundation now rather than waiting for the answer to become obvious.

Indeed, the most thoughtfully designed business model will fall short without the right talent foundation to support it. 鈥淭echnology strategy and people strategy are not separate conversations,鈥� Olson Bluvshtein says, adding that they are key parts of the same strategy.

Legal innovation consultant reinforces this point in , noting that many aspects of the structural foundation under which the legal profession has operated are changing all at once. This means that addressing the technology strategy separately from the human side, slice by slice, does not make sense.

Boyko says she encourages law firms to take a step back and approach the problem by identifying what the firm will need first in the future and then plan the talent and tech part for that reality.

Aligning the talent model to the future business model

Not surprisingly, a key challenge for law firms right now is that the future is uncertain. Therefore, it is difficult to design a talent model for an uncertain future and an unknown business model. At the same time, there are some known facts, but the unknown aspect is when these certainties will occur.

More specifically, what is known is that there is mounting pressure on the three possible law firm business models because AI is automating the tasks of past junior associates, clients do not want to pay for tasks completed by junior associates, and clients are bringing more legal work in-house, often until the time when the almost final deliverable is handed over to outside counsel for final review.

To explore the right talent model, one experiment that Boyko suggests is to expand the junior associate experience to include rotations through back-office functions, such as knowledge management, professional development, and technology functions.

At law firm Fredrikson & Byron, Olson Bluvshtein says its associate development program is evolving to prepare for the uncertain future based on three current tactics:

• • • Building AI fluency 鈥� This is a near-term imperative that will soon become table stakes. The goal is to move past basic adoption into something more sophisticated and durable. To enable this, the litigation and M&A practices at Fredrikson are actively working with a variety of tools to test prompts that they can then share more broadly with other teams, while also identifying how AI policy guidance will evolve.
    • Accelerating the development of legal judgment 鈥� Shortening the learning curve for developing legal judgment, which includes the ability to supervise and efficiently validate AI-produced work, is the second essential part of the firm鈥檚 talent development framework. Olson Bluvshtein is candid about where things stand. 鈥淚t has not fully happened yet,鈥� she says. 鈥淏ut building the training infrastructure to operationalize this is a stated goal for the year ahead, including formalized curriculum around effectively and efficiently supervising AI output.鈥�
    • Being hyper-focused on the development and recruiting of human skills 鈥� Doubling down on the human skills 鈥� including client development, negotiation, relationship-building, and sound judgment 鈥� that technology cannot replicate are the capabilities that will define the next generation of great lawyers, regardless of which law firm business model ultimately prevails.

This same philosophy is shaping how Fredrikson recruits. Rather than screening candidates for a checklist of AI tools, the firm is prioritizing curiosity, openness, and the ability to demonstrate human skills. Indeed, the firm is looking for lawyers “who are really good at those human skills鈥� and who bring the kind of judgment and adaptability that compounds over time, explains Olson Bluvshtein.

Boyko underscores a similar approach to skills. 鈥淩ight now, the skills needed to be a good lawyer are no longer those rote skills that AI can automate,鈥� she explains. 鈥淚nstead, they are the people skills, the operational skills, and the client skills.鈥�

Of course, moving from broad experimentation to disciplined, firm-wide maturity takes time, and the gap between early movers and late adopters is already widening. Those firms that will define the next era of legal services already are asking how AI changes the way it delivers value and what skills its lawyers will most need 鈥� and not just looking for the next tool to buy.

You can learn more about the challenges facing legal talent here

Key takeaways:

• • • New Zealand legal market achieves revenue and profit growth 鈥� A new TRI report on the New Zealand law firm market shows firms rebounding strongly from the pandemic, with firm revenue and profits up impressively.

    • Transactional and counter-cyclical practice demand drives success 鈥� More than half of the legal demand for New Zealand law firms comes from transactional work, which rose of the past year; meanwhile, counter-cyclical practices saw even higher growth rates.

    • Managed expenses and increased partner utilisation boost profit margins 鈥� Despite rising expenses due to technology and knowledge management investments, New Zealand law firms maintained manageable costs and increased equity partner utilisation.

For New Zealand law firms, years of careful investment and strategic pandemic recovery have paid off. Today, strong demand has vaulted firm revenue growth above double digits, leading to profits not seen among New Zealand firms since the early days of the pandemic, according to a new report from the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI) and data from TRI鈥檚 .

Jump to 鈫�

2026 Report on the State of the New Zealand Legal Market

Demand at New Zealand law firms rose more than 5% last year, following stagnant or decreasing growth rates between 2022 and 2024, according to TRI鈥檚 2026 Report on the State of the New Zealand Legal Market. As a result, overall firm revenue rose by more than 10%, placing it back near pre-pandemic levels. Coupled with managed expense growth, New Zealand law firms saw their first double-digit profit growth since 2021, after declines in demand for transactional practice work scuttled profits in 2022 and 2023.

Overall, more than half of the legal demand for New Zealand law firms comes from transactional work such as corporate general and M&A practices; and indeed, demand for such work rose last year after seeing only modest growth or declines in the the years prior. However, the report shows that even more notable is the rise of demand in counter-cyclical practices such as disputes & litigation, insurance defense, and workplace relations. The growth rate of counter-cyclical demand topped that of transactional demand in the second quarter of last year and continued to separate itself throughout the remainder of the year.

At the same time, firms continued to enjoy steady rate growth, with their worked rate growth over this past year coming close to their average rate growth than was seen from 2022 to 2024.

Interestingly, this represents a different strategy by New Zealand firms, compared to those in the United States or Australia, to capture profits through other means while keeping their rate increases manageable. And indeed, while Australian and US firms have largely seen falling utilisation, New Zealand equity partners averaged more hours worked per month in 2025 than they did the year prior, which helped to drive higher revenues.

Meanwhile, total expenses ticked up slightly last year compared with 2024, with both direct expenses and indirect expenses rising. However, much of this growth in indirect expenses is largely due to increased investments in technology and knowledge management, an increasingly necessary expense in the age of AI.

As a result of the demand rebound and more manageable expenses, New Zealand law firms are seeing their revenues and profits soar.

Overall revenue more than doubled, percentagewise, in 2025, which in turn directly led to sky-high profits in 2025 that were almost triple what they were the year prior. Profit per equity partner also saw similar gains.

Overall, New Zealand law firms on average largely held steady with a profit margin around 43%, while some firms saw profit margins soar above 50%.

As the report shows, all of this represents a very positive financial picture for New Zealand law firms. The return of demand, steady rate growth, and managed expenses has provided firms a solid footing from which to grow further. And if New Zealand law firm leaders can build on those positive metrics, they look poised to take these gains and grow further in 2026.

You can download

a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s “2026 Report on the State of the New Zealand Legal Market” by filling out the form below:

You can read TRI鈥檚 latest 鈥淚nside the Shift鈥� feature,听The AI adoption board game: Why law firm leaders can’t afford to play it safe here

Let鈥檚 be honest: most law firms know AI is a big deal. They鈥檝e read the headlines, attended the conferences, and nodded along when someone says, 鈥淎I will change everything.鈥� The problem? Knowing that AI matters and actually doing something strategic about it are two very different things. And according to our latest Inside the Shift feature article, that gap is where many law firms are starting to lose ground.

Our latest Inside the Shift feature, author Michelle Nesbitt-Burrell, Marketing Strategy Director for 成人VR视频 (TR), frames AI adoption as a boardgame that鈥檚 already underway. Some law firms are moving confidently across the board, while others are stuck on the starting square, not because they don鈥檛 see the future, but because they鈥檙e hesitating. The latest TRI research shows that while the majority of lawyers say they believe AI will fundamentally transform the legal industry within the next few years, far fewer expect real change inside their own firms anytime soon. That disconnect is risky 鈥� especially when competitors and clients aren鈥檛 waiting around.

Here’s what should concern every law firm partner 鈥� corporate legal departments aren’t just playing the same AI adoption game, they’re winning it.

 

One of the most uncomfortable truths the article reveals is that corporate legal departments are further often ahead on AI adoption and utilization than their outside counsel. In fact, many corporate legal teams are investing in AI faster and using it more deeply in their day鈥憈o鈥慸ay legal work. That means clients are reviewing contracts faster, doing more work internally, and increasingly judging their outside law firms on their technological sophistication. In a world like that, the excuse that We鈥檙e still experimenting stops sounding reasonable pretty quickly.

The article breaks law firms into three players on the game board:

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. The laggards 鈥� Those firms with no meaningful AI plans and very little ROI to show for it.
            2. The adopters 鈥� Thos firms that are experimenting with tools but don鈥檛 really have a clear strategy. These firms see some efficiency gains but too often hit a ceiling.
            3. The innovators 鈥� Those firms with visible, intentional AI strategies. These firms are far more likely to see ROI, revenue growth, and long鈥憈erm competitive advantages.

So, what separates the winners from everyone else? The article details the PLAYERS framework: pilot with purpose, leadership that sets the pace, action over perfection, strong ethics, serious education, good data, and 鈥� most importantly 鈥� strategy before tools. In other words, those law firms that want to become innovators should stop asking, What AI should we buy? and start asking What are we actually trying to achieve?

Clearly, AI isn鈥檛 a side project anymore. Law firms that treat it like one may save some time, but as the article fully explains, those firms that approach AI adoption and implementation strategically will reshape how legal work gets done. The game is already moving 鈥� the only question is whether your firm is playing to win or quietly falling behind.

You can find more听Inside the Shift feature articles听from the 成人VR视频 Institute here

Key takeaways:

• • • Structural change in firms 鈥� The traditional law firm pyramid, in which junior lawyers perform high-volume work at billable rates, is losing its foundation as AI compresses tasks that once took hours and clients increasingly bring more work in-house.

    • Finding new ways to train 鈥� AI-powered simulations are emerging as a concrete answer to the associate training problem, allowing new lawyers to build courtroom skills faster and fail safely behind closed doors.

    • The associate role isn’t dying, it’s being redefined 鈥� Those law firms that figure out the right mix of legal training, technological fluency, and management skills will have a significant edge over those that are still debating it.

NEW YORK 鈥斕齇n more than one occasion, I have written seriously and at length about the death of the billable hour. I’ve argued that alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) are the future, that the economic logic of hourly billing is irreconcilable with AI-driven productivity gains, and that the industry needs to prepare for a fundamentally different pricing model. I meant every word. I still do.

Yet, at last week鈥檚 one attendee pointed out they鈥檝e been hearing about the death of billable hour since the 1990s. At this point, it’s less a prediction and more of a tradition. Indeed, Matthew Kohel, a partner at Saul Ewing, said despite the legal press coverage connecting AI to the billable hour’s demise that narrative is now entering its third or fourth decade. And Kohel said his firm simply isn’t seeing meaningful client-driven movement toward AFAs.

So let鈥檚 be honest: the billable hour is not dead, and in fact, it may not be even close to dead.

However, if you’re looking for something that is facing a genuine existential reckoning 鈥� something the legal industry whispered about in the early days of generative AI (GenAI) and is now discussing openly 鈥� Legalweek 2026 may have found it. It turns out the billable hour was never the thing in danger, rather it鈥檚 the person billing the hours.

It’s the associate.

The question nobody wanted to ask out loud

The future of the junior lawyer surfaced in virtually every breakout session across the three-days event, and while it may not be the point of inception for the question, it was certainly the moment this idea graduated from a half-whispered aside to main-stage conversation.

Moreover, the problem has grown more urgent since its inception in the early GenAI days, when the question was simply whether a firm would need fewer associates. Now, that question hasn’t gone away, but it’s been joined by harder ones concerning training, hiring, and legal and technical skills. For example, what if AI is already better than a junior associate at some of the tasks that defined the role in the past? And what happens if someone says it out loud?

Someone said it out loud.

If you’re looking for something that is facing a genuine existential reckoning, Legalweek 2026 may have found it. It turns out the billable hour was never the thing in danger, rather it鈥檚 the person billing the hours.听It’s the associate.

During a panel on Measuring What Matters, the conversation turned to client trust. Clients want to know: How can you be sure AI will catch everything? How do you trust it to find what matters across 5,000 pages of documents?

The response from the panel was direct, and it landed like a brick in the room: it’s 5,000 pages, and someone was reading those five thousand pages. That someone is an associate. If that associate 鈥� who, more often than not, is one of the least experienced lawyers in the building 鈥� is the one reading all those pages, why would you trust them to do it better than a machine?

While that question hung in the air during the panel, it does deserve to sit with you for a moment afterward. Because embedded in it is the uncomfortable arithmetic that drives the entire associate question. The traditional law firm pyramid is built on a base of junior lawyers performing high-volume, lower-complexity work such as document review, due diligence, first-pass research, and doing so at rates that generate revenue while the activity is simultaneously (in theory) training the next generation of partners. If AI can do that base-layer work faster, cheaper, and with accuracy that one panelist described as “beyond very good,” then the pyramid doesn’t just shrink. It loses its foundation.

Barclay Blair, Senior Managing Director of AI Innovation at DLA Piper, noted that tasks like due diligence on some types of financial contracts are already being compressed to two hours, down from 15 to 20 鈥� with zero hours being a realistic possibility in the near future.

Further, as one attendee observed, clients increasingly are adopting AI internally, and they’re bringing work in-house that was previously sent to outside counsel. Clearly, the work that trained generations of associates isn’t just being automated 鈥� in some cases, it’s leaving the firm entirely.

Fewer reps, greater weight

Yet here is where it would be easy (and wrong) to write the doom-and-gloom version of the future, in which AI replaces associates, the pipeline collapses, nobody knows how to train lawyers anymore, civilization crumbles, etc. It’s a clean narrative, but it’s also not what Legalweek panels actually said.

Because alongside the anxiety, something else was happening. People were building answers.

In another panel, Developing the Future Lawyer, panelists spent an hour in the weeds of what associate training actually looks like when the old model breaks down 鈥� and the conversation was far more concrete than you might expect.

Panelist spent an hour in the weeds of what associate training actually looks like when the old model breaks down 鈥� and the conversation was far more concrete than you might expect.

Panelist Abdi Shayesteh, Founder and CEO of AltaClaro, laid out the core problem with precision, noting that there’s a growing gap in critical thinking among associates. Templates getting copy-pasted without relevance analysis, and there is a lack of knowing what you don’t know. And the traditional training methods such as videos, lectures, and passive learning, don’t fix it. Indeed, those outdated models may be making it worse. Shayesteh鈥檚 analogy was blunt: You don鈥檛 learn to swim by watching videos 鈥� you need to jump into the deep end.

His solution is AI-powered simulations. Not hypothetical ones, but working deposition simulations available today, with real-time AI feedback, in which associates can practice cross-examination, deal with opposing counsel objections, and build the muscle memory that used to require years of live experience.

Kate Orr, Managing Director of Practice Innovation at Orrick, picked up the thread with two observations that reframed the stakes. First, AI simulations allow associates to fail behind closed doors, a radical improvement over the old model, in which blowing it had real consequences because failure often happened directly in front of the partners Second, the tool isn’t just for juniors. Even experienced lawyers are using simulations to test different approaches, tweak personas, and sharpen arguments. Orrick’s own Supreme Court team had a lawyer use AI to review a draft brief and identify paragraphs that could be tighter.

Todd Heffner, Partner at Smith, Gambrell & Russell, said the real question isn’t whether associates will use AI, but rather whether it gets them to lead at trial in year 10 instead of year 20. Right now, most associates are lucky to see the inside of a courtroom in their first seven years, and even then, they spend most of their time back in the hotel prepping for the more experienced attorneys instead of arguing themselves. If simulations can compress that learning curve, the associate’s career doesn’t disappear, rather, it gets accelerated.

The dinosaur that adapted

During the Measuring What Matters panel, Mitchell Kaplan, Managing Director of Zarwin Baum, introduced himself with a memorable bit of self-deprecation: He’s a dinosaur 鈥� but one, he clarified, who understands how AI can revolutionize what he does.

Kaplan’s perspective threaded through both days of programming like a quiet counterweight to the anxiety. He’d seen this before 鈥� not AI specifically, but the fear of it. He watched the legal industry transition from physical libraries to digital research tools, and he watched attorneys adapt. And his message was consistent: the work changes, but the need for lawyers doesn’t disappear. Associates may be taking shortcuts, but they still need to read, still need to review, and still need to think.

They’re developing differently than his generation did, Kaplan said, but it鈥檚 the same way every generation develops differently from the one before it. And different doesn’t mean wrong.

The work changes, but the need for lawyers doesn’t disappear. Associates may be taking shortcuts, but they still need to read, still need to review, and still need to think.

It’s a perspective that found an unexpected echo in the Enterprise Alignment panel. Mark Brennan, a partner at Hogan Lovells, relayed a comment he heard at a previous AI conference: The next generation of entry-level jobs will be managers 鈥� because they’ll be managing agents and other tech tools. Brennan admitted he didn’t have all the answers on what that means for legal training, but the implication was clear. The associate role isn’t dying, instead, it’s being redefined. And the firms that figure out what that redefined role looks like, what mix of legal training, technological fluency, critical thinking, and management skills it requires, will have a significant advantage over those firms that are still debating it.

Another panelist, Andrew Medeiros, Managing Director of Innovation at Troutman Pepper Locke, made a prediction that felt like the sharpest version of this idea. He said that at some point, new lawyers are going to be doing simulated matters as a standard part of the development process. Eventually, there’s going to be a generation that walks in as new attorneys and finds themselves litigating right away.

That’s not the death of the associate. Rather, that’s the beginning of a different kind of associate 鈥� one who arrives at the courtroom sooner, with different preparation, carrying different tools.

The billable hour, for all the prophecies, refuses to die. The associate, it turns out, has no intention of dying either 鈥� just evolving. Mitchell Kaplan called himself a dinosaur 鈥� but Legalweek was full of dinosaurs, and every one of them was adapting and in that adaptation, thriving. The harder question is whether the firms that forged them will be brave enough to follow.

You can find more of听our coverage of Legalweek events听here

Key insights:

• • • • Creating prototypes of IP-protected teaching tools 鈥� Law school faculty can build working AI teaching tool prototypes in one to two hours without IP worries because key optional settings enable a closed system to ensure professors’ intellectual property remains protected.

      • Strong prompting skills create faster prototypes 鈥� The best instructions initially set the AI’s character, explains what the AI needs to accomplish, lists which documents to reference exclusively, describes how the response should be formatted, and mentions any applicable legal jurisdiction limits.

      • Feedback from students is positive 鈥� Students鈥� responses show AI simulators reduce anxiety and build confidence by providing unlimited low-stakes practice opportunities that make legal concepts more digestible through active dialogue rather than passive reading.

Law schools face a persistent challenge on how to provide individualized skills practice when one professor must serve many students. And today鈥檚 traditional legal education offers limited opportunities for students to practice oral arguments, evidentiary objections, and witness examinations. Indeed, the repetition necessary to build authentic courtroom skills does not scale easily with law professors in the classroom alone.

To address this challenge, at the University of Missouri鈥揔ansas City School of Law听 that simulate trial judges, three-panel appellate courts, witnesses, and evidentiary objection scenarios. Prof. Serra has seen firsthand how these tools give students unlimited, low-stakes practice opportunities that reduce their anxiety while building confidence in their legal reasoning and judgement.

Building your first AI learning tool, step by step

Creating custom AI teaching tools requires far less technical expertise than most professors would assume. As Prof. Serra explains, if you have a general idea of what you want the tool to accomplish, then 鈥測ou can have a working prototype in less than two hours from idea to execution.”

The process begins with choosing a large language model (LLM) platform, such as ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini, and securing a paid subscription, which most law schools will provide, she explains. During the sign-up process, optional settings enable a closed system to ensure law professors鈥� intellectual property is not shown to the students and is not used to train the LLMs.

Next, you should gather class materials, including slides, case files, manuals, and problems the professor has already created. After that, it is necessary to define one specific use case, such as an evidentiary objections practice tool, a Socratic method simulator, or a client interview assistant.

The building process itself takes about one to two hours and requires no coding skills. 鈥淵ou just start talking to the LLM like you are training a teaching assistant to do exactly what you want to do,” Prof. Serra adds.

Having built many tools, she highlights three critical components that are necessary for the efficient, useful, and flexible prototype. These include:

1. Prompting skills

Effective prompting is key to generating a good prototype. 听According to Prof. Serra, the ideal prompt includes defining the AI’s role (You are a trial judge in a federal district court), specifying the task the AI should deliver, identifying which documents to use exclusively, describing the desired output format, and including any jurisdictional constraints.

2. Multimodal features in AI tools

Most platforms allow for voice-activated chat mode, in addition to typing back and forth, which helps students respond out loud in real time. Custom AI tools also have shareable links, which enables easy deployment to students. Once a student engages with the tool, they can send back a transcript of the interaction. Some platforms even allow shareable audio files so students can get feedback from their professors on skills performance, not just content.

3. Verifying reliability

Evaluating the quality of the AI output is important but naturally varies by use case. For classroom tools, Prof. Serra recommends deploying prototypes quickly and using students as testers. If the tool produces outputs with inaccuracies, she encourages students to bring these errors to class for discussion. That way, everyone learns how to critically diagnose problems with AI outputs. A variety of problems cause AI inaccuracies 鈥� the AI itself, poor prompting, incorrect legal reasoning, or incomplete training.

For wider deployment without the builder鈥檚 direct oversight, Prof. Serra recommends an extended period of testing and iteration. Her tool, MootMentorAI, which simulates a three-judge appellate panel for first-year law students preparing for oral argument, is one example. Because MootMentorAI was developed for use by a colleague, Prof. Serra worked with a research assistant to conduct 80 simulations over the course of a semester 鈥� 40 from the plaintiff鈥檚 perspective and 40 from the defendant鈥檚 perspective 鈥� to verify reliability and improve performance before deployment without her supervision.

Overcoming adoption barriers among peers

Faculty resistance remains the most significant barrier to deploying AI-enabled teaching tools in legal education. “There’s lots of faculty pushback, distrust, and a healthy dose of skepticism with AI,” Prof. Serra acknowledges, arguing that even so, AI-powered tools are teaching assets for all law school courses. 鈥淓ven in doctrinal classes that run on traditional Socratic dialogue, professors can still use AI to reinforce learning outside the classroom through tools, such as podcast-style lectures, a multiple-choice practice assistant, tools to enable issue-spotting, and essay practice tied to course fact patterns.鈥�

Common concerns among law school faculty include confidentiality, intellectual property protection, fear of revealing exam content, and perceived lack of technical expertise. However, Prof. Serra points out that these fears often stem from her colleagues鈥� misunderstanding of how closed systems work. Indeed, if privacy settings are correctly deployed, uploaded materials will not be used to train public models and students cannot access source documents.

Indeed, the most effective strategy for overcoming resistance is personal demonstration, she says, noting that she frequently sits down with colleagues virtually to build tools based on the colleague鈥檚 own use case. She鈥檚 built everything from a Startup CEO simulator for a business course, to an interview assistant for Career Services, to a simulated forensics expert for students to cross-examine. This grassroots approach, combined with speaking at conferences and identifying super fans who can champion the technology, gradually builds institutional buy-in, she adds.

Multifaceted student feedback

Student feedback has been overwhelmingly positive, with learners describing how AI simulators make legal skills training more accessible, more engaging, and less intimidating. In fact, students are often surprised by how convincingly AI tools can simulate judges, witnesses, and other real-world lawyering scenarios. They also appreciate having permission to use AI as a legitimate learning aid.

They also report that real-time interaction makes course concepts more digestible because these tools turn learning into an active dialogue rather than passively staring at a casebook. Finally, students say the simulators reduce anxiety before oral arguments or presentations by enabling unlimited, low-stakes repetition that builds confidence and keeps practice from feeling overwhelming.

Clearly, AI tools are quickly becoming essential learning infrastructure, and legal education cannot afford to treat them as optional add-ons if it expects to stay relevant. As a growing chorus of educators and employers warns that institutions must evolve, the real question is whether schools will build responsible, faculty-guided systems fast enough to meet students where the profession is headed.

When deployed thoughtfully, these platforms can scale individualized skills training, deepen engagement beyond the casebook, and build durable confidence that law students can carry into their future legal practice.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚听recent white paper, , here

Key findings:

• • • The market remains strong, but growth is difficult 鈥� Australian law firms are still posting solid demand and rate growth in the first half of FY 2026, yet the pace is becoming more challenging to sustain.

    • Australia is no longer a single legal market, but three distinct ones 鈥� The report identifies three clearly differentiated law firm segments: Large firms leading demand growth through aggressive investment; Big 8 firms emphasizing pricing power and cost discipline; and Midsize firms pursuing steadier, more moderate growth.

    • Early signals suggest GenAI is reshaping productivity and leverage 鈥� Changes in hours worked across seniority levels point to possible early impacts of GenAI; and while overall productivity is stable, non鈥慹quity partners and associates are logging fewer hours, while senior associates and equity partners are working more.

The Australian legal market enters the back half of FY 2026 with strong topline numbers, but beneath the surface, the market is working harder to maintain its momentum. Firms are navigating slower rate growth, shifting demand patterns, and the early tremors of what may prove to be a generative AI-driven transformation.

Solid footing, harder-won gains

Australian law firms built an impressive track record over the post-pandemic era, and the first half of FY 2026 shows that run may not be over yet 鈥� although its character is changing. Demand growth of 4.8% year-to-date sits a full percentage point above the average quarterly pace since FY 2022, according to the 成人VR视频 Institute’s just-released 2026 Australia: Midyear Legal Market Update report. Worked rates, meanwhile, rose 4.7%, which is respectable, but a noticeable step down from the 5.4% average growth firms had enjoyed since FY 2022.

At the practice level, the picture is broadly encouraging. Both transactional and counter-cyclical practice groups are accelerating, with workplace relations leading all practices at 9.9% year-to-date growth and corporate general close behind at 7.7%. However, a potential warning sign lies in the divergence among each macro-category’s flagship practice: insolvency & restructuring is surging at 7.9%, while mergers & acquisitions sits in contraction at -2.1%. If dealmaking remains subdued while restructuring activity accelerates, transactional practices could face meaningful headwinds in the quarters ahead.

Three markets, not one

Perhaps the most significant finding in this year’s report is what the market-wide averages have been concealing. Last year’s Australia State of the Legal Market report highlighted growing competition between the Big 8 and a broader group of Large law firms that were challenging the Big 8鈥檚 dominance. This year, a refined three-segment framework reveals that the former Large category was actually masking two very different stories, between Large firms and a newly identified set of Midsize firms.

The newly delineated Large firms have emerged as the clear demand leaders, posting nearly 7% year-to-date growth 鈥� roughly double their peers 鈥� fueled by aggressive investment and expansion. The Big 8, by contrast, are leaning into pricing power and cost discipline, growing demand at a more measured 2.7%. And the Midsize cohort, at 2.4% demand growth, is charting a balanced, moderate course.

The profitability divergence is even more striking. Since FY 2022, the firms now classified as Large have grown profits per lawyer by 27.4%, while Midsize firms managed just 3.1% 鈥� much closer to the Big 8’s 7.1% than to their former stablemates. What previously appeared to be a broad-based challenge to the elite was, in reality, concentrated among a smaller group of high performers that were pulling the average upward.

Early signals of AI-driven change

The report also surfaces a potentially significant development in law firm productivity. While overall hours worked per month ticked up slightly for the average qualified fee earner, the gains are unevenly distributed. Non-equity partners recorded their third consecutive productivity decline, and junior and mid-level associates are also slightly down. Yet senior associates and equity partners are logging more hours, keeping overall numbers stable. One possible explanation is GenAI 鈥� if firms are deploying these tools most heavily on research, drafting, and document review tasks that traditionally filled junior and mid-level associate hours, this is precisely the pattern we would expect to see. While it’s too early to draw solid conclusions, the distribution of hours may represent an early sign of how AI is beginning to reshape the traditional leverage model.

There is also a note of caution from firms鈥� clients. 成人VR视频 Market Insights data shows Australian general counsel growing more conservative in their spending outlook, with net spend anticipation for overall legal work dropping to 0 points. That means just as many GCs see their legal spend increasing as those that anticipating it decreasing.

Interestingly, international legal spend tells a different story 鈥� Australia-based GCs are increasingly looking outward, with the Asia-Pacific and Latin American regions emerging as areas of particular activity, while Europe has cooled. For Australian firms with cross-border ambitions, the short-term opportunity may lie to the global east and south rather than west.

Looking into the second half of the year

As the Australian legal market moves into the second half of FY 2026, the story is no longer one of uniform prosperity but rather, one of strategic differentiation. Demand remains healthy, profitability is solid, and expense discipline is improving; however, growth is no longer evenly distributed. The law firms that thrive in the quarters ahead will be those that understand which game they’re playing. In an increasingly segmented market, adaptability 鈥� not scale alone 鈥� will define success.

You can download a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s 鈥�2026 Australia: Midyear Legal Market Update鈥� report by filling out the form below:

You can read TRI鈥檚 latest 鈥淚nside the Shift鈥� feature,听Premortem: Your 2028 agentic AI pilot program failed听here

Picture this: It鈥檚 2028, your law firm spent real money on an agentic AI pilot, and now it鈥檚 quietly been shut down. No press release, no victory lap 鈥� just a post鈥憁ortem that nobody wants to read. In our latest听Inside the Shift feature article, we see that such a future is very likely unless firms start preparing for agentic AI in a way that鈥檚 very different than how they think they should.

The big idea is simple but uncomfortable: Success with generative AI (GenAI) does not mean your organization is ready for agentic AI. GenAI works because it鈥檚 forgiving. You can paste text into a tool, get a decent answer, and move on 鈥� even if your data is messy and your workflows live in people鈥檚 heads. Agentic AI doesn鈥檛 work that way. It expects clean data, documented processes, and clear rules. If your firm runs on institutional memory, workarounds, and a kind of just ask Linda problem-solving process, then the system will eventually break down.

To examine this and many more situations, the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI) has launched a new feature segment,听Inside the Shift, that leverages our expert analysis and supporting data to tell some of the most compelling stories professional services today.

Our latest Inside the Shift feature, Premortem: Your 2028 agentic AI pilot program failed听by Bryce Engelland, Enterprise Content Lead for Innovation & Technology for the 成人VR视频 Institute, walks us through two fictional but painfully familiar failure stories of how two separate firms handled their agentic AI pilot programs.

The author explains how the first firm moves fast after crushing their GenAI rollout and assuming agentic AI is just the next logical step. Everything looks great in a sandbox; but then the system hits real鈥憌orld chaos: Undocumented exceptions, fragmented document storage, and conflict checks that only work because humans intuitively know when something feels off. One bad intake decision later, client trust is damaged and the pilot is frozen. In this example, the tech didn鈥檛 fail 鈥� the organization did.

The second firm goes the opposite direction. They鈥檙e cautious, thoughtful, and obsessed with governance. They build guardrails, limit risk, and launch a perfectly reasonable pilot. And then鈥� nothing happens. Attorneys ignore the system 鈥� not because they hate AI, but because using it only adds risk with no reward. If it works as it鈥檚 supposed to, nothing changes; but if something goes wrong, they鈥檒l be blamed. So, unsurprisingly, the rational choice is to nod in meetings and quietly keep doing things the old way until the project dies of inertia.

The challenge is that “preparing” doesn’t mean what most people think. It doesn’t mean buying early, and it doesn’t mean waiting for maturity. Rather, preparing means understanding now why these systems fail, and building the institutional capacity to avoid those failures when the technology arrives in full.

The feature article points out the common thread here: These failures have very little to do with AI capability; rather, they鈥檙e about incentives, documentation, and institutional honesty. Firms that succeed with agentic AI won鈥檛 be the ones that buy in early or wait patiently. The winners, the piece explains, be the ones doing the boring, unsexy work now: Writing things down, fixing information architecture, identifying hidden dependencies, and aligning rewards so adoption isn鈥檛 all risk and no upside.

In short, this article isn鈥檛 a warning about technology. It鈥檚 a warning about pretending your organization is ready when it鈥檚 not 鈥� and mistaking optimism or caution for preparation.

So, dive a little deeper behind the headlines about AI adoption and how to make agentic AI work for your organization. Click through and read today鈥檚 Inside the Shift feature. It might help you see more clearly than before whether the path your organization is pursuing with agentic AI will carry it over the goal line and into the next decade鈥� or leave your team watching from the sidelines.

You can find more听Inside the Shift feature articles听from the 成人VR视频 Institute here

Key insights:

• • • AI can help lawyers prepare better, more relevant client conversations 鈥� AI鈥檚 real value lies in synthesizing news, regulatory updates, client activity, and relationship data so lawyers have timely, tailored insights that make outreach easier and more meaningful.

    • AI works best as a foundation for client discussions, not a script 鈥� Panelists at a recent Forum repeatedly stressed that AI-generated briefs and opportunity matrices should only guide lawyers, but authenticity, experience, and interpretation are still what make client conversations effective.

    • Firms must actively and clearly talk to clients about their AI capabilities 鈥� Clients increasingly expect AI-savvy law firms, and those that can confidently explain how AI improves their service offerings while keeping humans at the center will stand out, while silence or vague messaging is a missed opportunity.

AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. 鈥� During the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent听33rd Annual Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer Forum听(formerly the听Marketing Partner Forum), one concept became clear very quickly: When it comes to AI in law firms, the technology itself isn鈥檛 the hard part anymore. The real challenge 鈥� and the real opportunity 鈥� is how firms use AI to deepen client relationships and, just as importantly, how they talk to clients about what they鈥檙e doing.

Indeed, more than three-quarters of respondents (77%) say they believe law firms should take the initiative to begin these talks with clients around AI usage, according to the recent 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 2026 AI in Professional Services Report.

Across multiple Forum panel discussions, speakers returned again and again to the same idea: AI is becoming a powerful business development engine, but only if lawyers and law firm business development teams are willing to use it proactively and communicate its value in human terms.

AI as an assistant, not a replacement

One of the most practical discussions that arose during the Forum centered on using AI to make client outreach less painful and more effective. Too often, panelists contended, senior lawyers often don鈥檛 send regular client notes 鈥� but it鈥檚 not because they don鈥檛 care. These notes get put on the backburner because crafting them takes time away from billable work and is hard to prioritize.

You can find out more about next year鈥檚 Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer Forum 2027听here

Several panelists talked about how AI can change that equation by pulling together information from news coverage, regulatory developments, earnings calls, relationship data, and even what clients are actively reading. Instead of staring at a blank page, partners can walk into a meeting or send a note armed with relevant, timely insights that actually matter to the client, they explained.

鈥淲e can plant things in our lawyers鈥� and partners鈥� minds to move the needle with clients so they can open conversations with clients that will make a difference,鈥� said one panelist.

Of course, the point isn鈥檛 to automate relationships, rather it鈥檚 to give lawyers a smarter starting point 鈥� a short list of clients to contact, paired with concrete conversation openers that feel tailored rather than generic. 鈥淭hose conversations and what results from those conversations will be revolutionary for your firm,鈥� the panelist added.

Another theme that resonated at the Forum was the idea of matching client needs with firm capabilities in a much more structured way. AI can help generate documents that clearly show what a client is dealing with and where the firm can help 鈥� essentially an opportunity matrix that鈥檚 built from real data.

Strong need for lawyer training around AI

Several speakers were quick to stress, however, that this doesn鈥檛 mean that AI should be left on autopilot. The best results come when firms train their partners before client meetings, using AI-generated briefs as a foundation, not a script. That balance 鈥� between automation and authenticity 鈥� came up repeatedly throughout the Forum. As several panelists described, AI can bring insights to the surface, but lawyers still need to interpret those insights, contextualize them, and deliver them in a way that feels personal.

鈥淎I might get you 90% of the way there, but that last 10% still depends on human judgment, experience, and relationship skills,鈥� said one law firm technology specialist.

Indeed, if there was one clear takeaway from the Forum, it鈥檚 that AI adoption rises or falls on training. Not broad, one-size-fits-all sessions, but bespoke, one-on-one training that shows lawyers exactly how AI helps them prepare for client conversations. Indeed, several panelists argued that it is essential that firms educate their attorneys on how to use these tools effectively or give them very specific guidance 鈥� anything less will lead to hesitation, confusion, or outright resistance.

Of course, the problem is that AI adoption isn鈥檛 waiting for everyone to catch up. As one speaker noted, the train is already leaving the station, and those firms that fail to bring partners along 鈥� especially by showing clear, practical benefits of AI use 鈥� risk falling behind quickly.

In fact, several panelists discussed how the excitement around agentic AI is real, but so are the risks. They warned against assuming these more advanced tools are smarter or more autonomous than they really are. In fact, AI agents are still constrained by the data and tools they鈥檙e given, and a flawed understanding at the leadership level can lead to poor decisions and misplaced expectations.

That said, business development was repeatedly described as an ideal starting point for experimenting with agentic AI. The workflows are less rigid or high stakes than agentic use for legal work, the feedback loops are faster, and early wins are easier to spot.

Talking to clients about AI matters

Overall, perhaps the most important takeaway from the Forum wasn鈥檛 technical at all. It was strategic.

Because clients are increasingly expecting their law firms to be AI鈥憇avvy, firms have to be proactive in their response. Firms have to not just be using AI internally, but understanding how the technology improves their service, efficiency, and insight. Those firms that can clearly and confidently explain to their own partners and clients how AI supports their best efforts 鈥� and where humans still play a critical role 鈥� will stand out. Staying silent about AI, or worse, being vague and generic about its value, is a missed opportunity, several panelists explained.

Those law firms that thrive, especially around business development and client service, will be the ones that treat AI not as a back-office experiment, but as a client-facing capability 鈥� something to be discussed openly, thoughtfully, and authentically.

You can read the full听Executive Summary of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 33rd Annual Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer Forum听here

You can read TRI鈥檚 first “Inside the Shift” feature, The 4 scenarios: Which law firm business model are you building? here

If you鈥檙e running a law firm right now, you鈥檝e probably felt it 鈥� the ground is shifting fast. AI isn鈥檛 some future consideration; indeed, it鈥檚 already shaping how clients choose their firms, how work gets done, and which business models are built to last.

To examine this situation 鈥� and many more in the future 鈥� more deeply, the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI) has begun publishing a new feature segment, , that will allow our expert analysis and supporting data to more fully tell some of the most important stories in the legal, tax, accounting, corporate, and government areas.

Our first Inside the Shift feature, The 4 scenarios: Which law firm business model are you building? by Elizabeth Duffy, TRI鈥檚 Senior Director of Client Engagement and Raghu Ramanathan, President of 成人VR视频 Legal Professional business, cuts through much of the noise around AI adoption in the legal industry. The piece lays out a clear, uncomfortable truth: in the age of AI, strategic clarity isn鈥檛 optional 鈥� it鈥檚 survival.

For years, many law firms have tried to hedge their bets. A little bespoke work here, a little efficiency there. Premium pricing mixed with cost pressure. The result? A mushy middle that feels safe but is actually the most dangerous place to be. As the feature makes clear: Law firms without a distinct position 鈥� neither elite, automated, scaled, nor protected by regulation 鈥� are the ones most exposed to existential risk.

And here鈥檚 the kicker that the authors point out: Clients aren鈥檛 waiting for firms to catch up.

Corporate legal departments are already evaluating firms based on their AI maturity 鈥� how effectively they use technology to deliver speed, consistency, and quality. This is happening even as many clients are still figuring out their own AI strategies. In other words, law firms are being judged by their clients right now, whether they鈥檙e ready or not.

Client pressure is building faster than internal capabilities can keep pace.

Even corporate legal departments new to AI are asking pointed questions of outside counsel.

The authors don鈥檛 argue that there鈥檚 one correct model. Instead, the piece lays out four distinct scenarios that law firm leaders can choose from, making the case that choosing something deliberately is far better than drifting. Of course, each scenario demands different investments in talent, technology, pricing, and client engagement. What they all share, however, is intention.

That鈥檚 what makes this piece 鈥� and future Inside the Shift features 鈥� so valuable. It鈥檚 not full of hype, and it鈥檚 not fear鈥憁ongering. Rather it鈥檚 offering a strategic framework for leaders who know that AI is reshaping professional service markets but are still wrestling with what that actually means for their organization.

If you鈥檙e a managing partner, innovation leader, or industry watcher who鈥檚 tired of vague predictions and wants a clearer map of what鈥檚 ahead, the Inside the Shift features will be well worth your time. The questions they will raise 鈥� about positioning, differentiation, and the cost of standing still 鈥� aren鈥檛 comfortable, but they鈥檙e exactly the questions firms need to be asking now.

So don鈥檛 just skim the headlines about AI in law. Click through and read today鈥檚 Inside the Shift feature. It might help you see, more clearly than before, which business model you鈥檙e actually building in your law firm 鈥� and whether it鈥檚 the one that will be able to carry your firm into the next decade.

You can find more from the 成人VR视频 Institute here

• • • EI is emerging as a critical strategic capability 鈥� Stronger emotional intelligence can enable law firm leaders to build trust, navigate complex relationships, and strengthen both internal collaboration and client engagement.

    • Culture is now the defining factor in retaining top talent 鈥� As professionals increasingly expect transparency, purpose, and human鈥慶entered leadership rather than traditional top鈥慸own structures, law firms need to adapt.

    • Successful lateral integration requires coordination 鈥� Firms need to provide consistent messaging and fulfill their commitments to ensure that new hires feel aligned, supported, and positioned to contribute meaningfully.

AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. 鈥� If you鈥檝e spent any amount of time inside a law firm, you already know that the people stuff is often the hardest part of the job. Sure, the work is complex, the clients are demanding, and the deadlines are relentless 鈥� but navigating human dynamics? That鈥檚 where things get really interesting.

During the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 recent听33rd Annual Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer Forum听(formerly the听Marketing Partner Forum), three panels zoomed in on law firm talent: how to attract it, how to integrate it, and how to keep it. And while the themes ranged from emotional intelligence to lateral hiring to long鈥憈erm culture building, one takeaway stood out loud and clear: Those law firms that want to succeed have to start thinking about talent as a strategic engine 鈥� not an administrative task.

EI is not just a soft skill, it鈥檚 a strategic power skill

Emotional intelligence (EI) is having something of a renaissance inside law firms, and frankly, it鈥檚 overdue. As several panelists emphasized, EI isn鈥檛 about being warm and fuzzy 鈥� it鈥檚 about , especially in a high鈥憄ressure, fact鈥慸riven environment like law.

Stronger EI, especially among firm leadership, will enhance everyone鈥檚 ability to perceive, understand, and manage their own emotions and relationships. Emotionally intelligent professionals are better able to motivate themselves, read social cues, and build stronger relationships. And because it requires being aware of emotions in oneself and others, it can positively impact internal collaboration and external client relationships.

You can find out more about next year鈥檚 Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer Forum 2027听here

For example, one panelist explained, if your go鈥憈o opener with clients is still, 鈥淗ow鈥檚 it going?鈥�, don鈥檛 expect anything more insightful than a polite shrug. Lawyers should use intentional conversation starters and even simple prompts, such as sharing the 鈥渢op 10 things clients say we can do better,鈥� the panelist explained.

Of course, EI isn鈥檛 always easy for lawyers because they are trained to trust facts, not feelings. That means firm leaders often need to dig deeper especially when someone seems resistant. It鈥檚 crucial for law firm leaders to remember that EI isn鈥檛 emotional fluff. It鈥檚 how firms build trust, lead through uncertainty, and strengthen both internal teams and client relationships. It鈥檚 a differentiator, panelists said, and one that law firms can no longer treat as optional.

In retention, culture is the whole game

Indeed, so much around talent hinges on the workplace culture, and as another panel discussed, that it has become the linchpin for successful hiring and retention of top talent. Indeed, in today鈥檚 environment, even the best firms may have trouble hiring and keeping top talent in a market where expectations, especially after the pandemic, have changed dramatically.

鈥淚t鈥檚 just changed so much since the pandemic where people just did their jobs and were expected to do so,鈥� said one panelist. 鈥淣ow, they want to feel valued and want to feel like they are making a difference.鈥�

Several panelists agreed, pointing out that top talent is harder to hire than ever, largely because client demands have increased and the talent pool hasn鈥檛 expanded at the same pace. However, culture is where firms either win or lose the long game, they concurred.

Today鈥檚 employees want to feel valued, engaged, and connected to meaningful work 鈥� not just completing tasks in the background. They want transparency, authenticity, and involvement in strategy, panelists said. 鈥淧eople need to want to be part of your team, they need to feel prized once they鈥檙e there,鈥� said another panelist. 鈥淭hey want leaders who are human first, and executives second.鈥�

While this cultural tightrope may seem daunting, when a firm gets it right, recruiting becomes significantly easier. People want to work in environments in which they can be themselves, questions are encouraged, and their participation actually shapes outcomes, another panelist explained. 鈥淜eeping great people isn鈥檛 about perks or ping鈥憄ong,鈥� they said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 about trust, clarity, and connection.鈥�

The strategy behind making lateral integration work

Another aspect of the talent discussion, lateral hiring, has become a cornerstone of modern law firm growth, according to another panel. But to be honest, several panelists argued, even firms that recruit great laterals often fail to integrate them properly.

This can be a critical failure, they added, because lateral integration isn鈥檛 a task 鈥� it鈥檚 a firmwide commitment. When done well, it accelerates growth; but when done poorly, it creates churn, skepticism, and reputational risk.

Panelists stressed that laterals need clear messaging from everyone in the firm about how they fit into the broader business strategy. That means offering them consistent narratives and articulated opportunities, as well as stories of client wins, proof points about firm strengths, and external endorsements 鈥� all of which can help build credibility, they said.

Further, laterals need structured opportunities to showcase their expertise 鈥� such as CLEs, webinars, client events, internal spotlights. 鈥淭hese aren鈥檛 just marketing activations,鈥� one panelist noted. 鈥淭hey are culture鈥慴uilding moments that signal, 鈥�You鈥檙e part of this team, and we want people to know what you bring.鈥欌赌�

On-boarding laterals, especially lateral teams, often can be a fraught proposition, and ideally one person should coordinate the entire process on the firm鈥檚 behalf. Otherwise, the new partner ends up drowning in inconsistent communication and duplicate requests. 鈥淣erves are very high during this time 鈥� worries about whether the lateral made the right choice, whether support staff is being accommodated, and, most critically, whether clients will come over too 鈥� and all that has to be managed,鈥� a panelist said.

However, the most important thing firm leadership can do when it comes to laterals is to simply deliver on their promises. Few things sour a lateral鈥檚 experience faster than broken commitments, another panelist offered.

Overall, the thread throughout all these panels on talent challenges within law firms showed that law firms need to evolve not just how they manage work, but how they manage people. Whether leveraging EI to power leadership and motivate teams, unifying communication to drive successful lateral integration, or fostering a culture in which top talent wants to stick around, firms would be wise to invest in human鈥慶entered strategies.

Indeed, the potential payoff is massive: More engaged teams, stronger client relationships, and a more resilient future. And for those firms that don鈥檛 make this shift? Well, talent always has other options.

You can read the full听Executive Summary of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 33rd Annual Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer Forum听here