Key takeaways:

• • • Violence against judges is escalating 鈥� Targeted shootings, coordinated harassment campaigns, and threats that now routinely follow judges to their homes and families.

    • The rhetoric driving the escalation is coming from the highest levels of government 鈥� The absence of any public denunciation from the Department of Justice is highlighting the source of the problem.

    • Will the violence itself become part of judicial rulings? 鈥� The endgame of judicial intimidation isn’t that judges stop ruling, it’s that the threat of violence becomes a silent presence in the deliberation itself.

NEW YORK 鈥� Those attendees who came to the recent听 to talk about AI, agentic workflows, and the business of legal technology, also were treated to a session that will likely stay with attendees and had nothing to do with AI.

In that session, four federal judges took the stage; but they were not there to talk about pricing models or AI adoption. They were there to talk about staying alive.

Setting the stage

Jason Wareham, CEO of IPSA Intelligent Systems and a former U.S. Marine Corps judge advocate, introduced the session 鈥� a panel of four sitting United States District Court judges 鈥� by speaking of how the rule of law once seemed resolute, yet how that faith in that has been shaken, year after year. He worked hard to frame his observations as nonpartisan, a matter of institutional fragility rather than political allegiance. It was a generous framing, but it was one that would not survive the weight of the ensuing discussion.

The Honorable Esther Salas of the District of New Jersey said that the reason she was there has a name. On July 19, 2020, a disgruntled, extremist attorney who had a case before her court arrived at her home during a birthday celebration. He shot and killed her twenty-year-old son, Daniel Anderl. He shot and critically wounded her husband. She has spent the years since on a mission to protect her judicial colleagues from the same fate.

The new normal

Next, the Honorable Kenly Kiya Kato of the Central District of California described what has changed. Judges鈥� rulings are still based on the Constitution, on precedent, and on the facts; but what’s different is the small voice in the back of a judge’s head. That voice, often coming after a judge issued a decision that they now have to fight against, asks: What will happen after this? It is now expected, Judge Kato explained, that a high-profile order will bring threats. When two colleagues in her district issued prominent decisions, her first thought was for their safety. That is not how it has been historically.

The Honorable Mia Roberts Perez of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asked how we got here, pointing to language from the highest levels of government: judges called monsters, a U.S. Department of Justice declaring war on rogue judges, and recently politicians bringing justice鈥檚 families into the conversation.

Judge Salas pushed even further. She acknowledged the instinct to frame the problem as bipartisan, but said the current moment is not apples to apples. It is apples to watermelons. The spike in threats since 2015, she argued, traces directly to rhetoric from political leaders using language never before deployed against the bench.

The federal judiciary is looking to break annual records for threats [against judges], and there is an absence of any public denunciation from the Attorney General or the DOJ.

The evidence is not abstract, nor are the victims, and the panel walked through it. Judge John Roemer of Wisconsin, zip-tied to a chair and assassinated in his home. Associate Judge Andrew Wilkinson of Maryland shot dead in his driveway while his family was inside. Judge Steven Meyer of Indiana and his wife Kimberly, shot through their own front door after attackers first posed as a food delivery, then returned days later claiming to have found the couple’s dog. Judge Meyer has just undergone his fifth surgery since the attack.

All of these incidents happened at the judges’ homes.

Judge Salas then played a voicemail, one of thousands that federal judges receive. It was less than 30 seconds long, but it did not need to be longer. While names had been redacted, what remained was a torrent of threats and obscenities, graphic, sexual and violent, delivered with the confidence of someone who does not expect consequences. Some judges receive hundreds of these after a single ruling, often from people with no case before them at all.

The shadow over the courts

Throughout the session, there was a presence the panelists circled but rarely named directly. A shadow that shaped every observation about escalating threats, every reference to rhetoric from the top down, every mention of language never before used by political leaders, of action or inaction the likes of which would have been unthinkable just several years ago. The specifics were spoken. The name, largely, was not.

It didn’t have to be.

Judge Kato said that what was perhaps the most disheartening aspect of all this is that these threats are getting worse. The people who know better are not doing better. Indeed, she said her children think about these problems every day. What will happen to mom today? Will someone come to the house? These are questions children should not have to carry. They did not sign up for this, and neither did the judges.

In 2026, Judge Salas noted, the federal judiciary is looking to break annual records for threats. She also noted the absence of any public denunciation from the Attorney General or the DOJ. The silence, she said, says a lot.

Not surprisingly, the implications extend beyond the judges themselves. As Judge Salas noted, if judges have to weigh their safety alongside the law, ordinary people don’t stand a chance. If one party is stronger, better funded, or more willing to threaten, then the scales tip.

That is the endgame of judicial intimidation. It鈥檚 not that judges stop ruling, but that the violent and the powerful 鈥� indeed, the people least fit to hold the scales 鈥� can tilt them at will.

That concern echoed an earlier warning from Judge Karoline Mehalchick of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Mehalchick said that judicial intimidation feeds on misunderstanding. When the public no longer grasps why judges must be insulated from pressure or conversely, mistakes independence for partisanship, the threat environment becomes easier to justify, easier to ignore, and harder to reverse.

What is perhaps the most disheartening aspect of all this is that these threats are getting worse, and the people who know better are not doing better.

In his 2024 year-end report, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts identified four threats to judicial independence: violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgements. The panel discussed this report as prophecy fulfilled. Public confidence in the judiciary has plummeted since 2021, and the reasons are complex. The judges insisted they are still doing their jobs the right way, but the violence is spreading anyway.

What survives

Judge Salas asked the audience to watch their thoughts. Are they negative and destructive, or positive and uplifting? Can we start loving more? She ended by sending love and light to everyone in the room.

The judges were visibly emotional on the stage.

The words were beautiful. They were also, in the context of everything that had just been described 鈥� the killings, the voicemails, the zip ties, the pizza deliveries masking a threat under a murdered son’s name 鈥� resting in a shadow that no amount of love and light could fully dispel on their own.

The room responded with a standing ovation.

Thousands of people came to Legalweek 2026 to talk about the future of legal technology. For one morning, four judges reminded them that none of it matters if the people charged with administering justice cannot do so safely.

So, while the billable hour may survive and the associate will adapt, the harder question, the one that should keep the legal industry awake at night, is whether the bench will hold.

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

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:

Key insights:

• • • Courts and the legal profession need to show leadership 鈥� Given their specialized knowledge of the needs of litigants and of courts, courts need to take the lead in determining definitions of the unauthorized practice of law.

    • 3 paths forward to workable regulatory solutions 鈥� Recent discussions and research around this subject offered three paths toward modernizing UPL definitions.

    • Uncertainty harms users and innovation 鈥� Fear of UPL can drive self-censorship and market exits, even as litigants continue to use publicly available GenAI tools.

Today, many Americans experience legal issues but lack proper access to legal representation. At the same time, AI tools capable of providing legal information are rapidly evolving and already in widespread use. Between these two facts lies a critical definitional problem that courts and state bars must urgently address: How to define the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) in way that doesn鈥檛 further curtail access to justice.

This discussion is not theoretical. It directly determines whether AI-based legal services can operate, how they should be regulated, and ultimately whether AI can help unrepresented or self-represented litigants gain meaningful access to justice. This issue was explored in more depth during a recent webinar from the听, a joint effort by the National Center for State Courts听(NCSC) and the 成人VR视频 Institute (TRI).

The need for clear definitions

During the webinar, Alaska Supreme Court Administrative Director Stacey Marz noted that “there is no uniform definition of the practice of law” and that UPL regulations represent “a real varied continuum of scope and clarity.” This variation makes compliance challenging for technology providers, especially as they navigate 50 different state standards.

UPL generally occurs when someone “not licensed as an attorney attempts to represent or perform legal work on behalf of another person,” explained Cathy Cunningham, Senior Specialist Legal Editor at 成人VR视频 Practical Law.

Marz added that such legal advice typically involves “applying the law, rules, principles, and processes to specific facts and circumstances of that individual client 鈥� and then recommending a course of action.”

The challenge, however, is that AI can appear to do exactly this, yet the regulatory framework remains unclear about whether and how this should be permitted and how consumers can be protected.

3 paths forward

During the recent webinar, panelists discussed several different approaches to UPL regulations, noting that a and outlined three approaches that state courts could take, including:

Path 1: Explicitly enabling tools with regulatory framework 鈥� UPL statutes can be revisited to explicitly allow purpose-built AI legal tools to operate without threat of UPL enforcement, provided they meet certain requirements. Prof. Dyane O’Leary, Director of Legal Innovation & Technology at Suffolk University, emphasized that consumer-facing AI legal tools are already being used for tailored legal advice, arguing that some oversight is better than “just letting these tools continue to operate and hoping consumers aren’t harmed by them.”

Path 2: Creating regulatory sandboxes 鈥� Courts could establish temporary experimental zones in which AI legal service providers can operate under controlled conditions while regulators gather data about efficacy and safety through feedback and research, with an eye toward informing future regulation reform.

Path 3: Narrowing UPL to human conduct 鈥� Clarifying that existing UPL rules apply only to humans who may hold themselves out as attorneys in tribunals or courtrooms or creating legal documents under the guise of being a human attorney, effectively would leave AI-powered legal tools clearly outside UPL restrictions and open up a “new pocket of the free market” for consumers.

Utah Courts Self-Help Center Director Nathanael Player referenced Utah Supreme Court Standing Order Number 15, which established their regulatory sandbox using a fundamentally different standard: Not whether services match what lawyers provide, but rather “is this better than the absolute nothing that people currently have available to them?”

Prof. O’Leary reframed the comparison itself, suggesting that instead of comparing consumers who use AI tools to consumers with an attorney, the framework should be “consumers that use legal AI tools, and maybe consumers that otherwise have no support whatsoever.鈥�

The personhood puzzle

“AI, at this time, does not have legal personhood status,鈥� said Practical Law鈥檚 Cunningham. 鈥淪o, AI can’t commit unauthorized practice of law because AI is not a person.”

However, Player pushed back on this reasoning, clarifying that 鈥淎I does have a corporate personhood. There is a corporation that made the AI, [and] the corporation providing that does have corporate personhood.” He added, however, that “it’s not clear, I don’t think we know whether or not there is鈥� some sort of consequence for the provision of ChatGPT providing legal services.”

You can view here

This ambiguity creates what might be called the personhood gap, a zone of legal uncertainty with serious consequences for both innovation and access to justice.

Colin Rule, CEO at online dispute resolution platform ODR.com, explained that “one of the major impacts of UPL is, actually self-censorship.” After receiving a UPL letter from a state bar years ago, he immediately exited that market. This pattern repeats across the legal tech landscape, leaving companies hesitant to innovate.

Rule’s bottom line resonates with anyone trying to build solutions in this space. “As a solution provider, what I want is guidance,鈥� Rules explained. 鈥淐larity is what I need most鈥� that’s my number one priority.”

Moving forward: Clarity over perfection

The legal profession needs to lead on this issue, and that means state bars and state supreme courts must take action now. The tools are already in use, and the question is not whether AI will play a role in legal services, but rather whether that role will be defined by thoughtful regulation or by default.

The solution is for the judiciary to provide clear guidance on what services can be offered, by whom, and under what conditions. To do that, courts much first acknowledge that for most people, the choice is not between an AI tool and a lawyer but between an AI tool and nothing. Given that, states must walk a path that will both encourage innovation and protect consumers.

To this end, legal professionals and courts should experiment with these tools, understand their trajectory as well as their current limitations, and work collaboratively with developers to create frameworks that prioritize consumer protection without stifling innovation that could genuinely expand access to justice.

You can find out more about how courts and legal professionals are dealing with the unauthorized practice of law here

Key insights:

• • • Despite a strong 2025, law firms face growing challenges 鈥� Client expectations continue to evolve, as more clients are now more sophisticated around AI and pricing, pushing law firms to provide greater transparency and communication.

    • Client relationships are becoming shallower 鈥� As clients increasingly demand transparency and collaboration, particularly regarding AI adoption and pricing models, law firms must adapt quickly to meet these new expectations.

    • Differentiation is more vital than ever 鈥� Responsiveness, speed, and clear communication about value and technology have emerged as key factors for law firms to stand out and deepen client relationships.

AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. 鈥� It may have already become clich茅 to say that the legal industry is at a significant crossroads: Firms are coming off what appears by all measures to be a very successful 2025, yet the industry also is facing fundamental structural change, driven mainly by AI and subsequent changing client expectations.

Subsequently, that temperament permeated the opening sessions of the 成人VR视频 Institute鈥檚 33rd Annual Chief Marketing & Business Development Officer Forum (formerly the Marketing Partner Forum) held this week.

鈥淣o matter how well we鈥檙e all doing, the angst level has never been higher,鈥� said one law firm leader at the Forum.

Jen Dezso, Director of Client Relations at the 成人VR视频 Institute, opened the event giving a data-rich thumbnail of the legal market, based mostly on the recently released 2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market, published jointly by the 成人VR视频庐 Institute and the Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law. Dezso demonstrated that almost all key indicators for law firm performance are up 鈥� demand, fees worked, lawyer growth 鈥� and that firms seem to be 鈥渕onetizing the work they capture.鈥� The main drivers pushing firm growth, she explained, are being moved by strategic wins of high-value business rather than a higher volume of ordinary work.

鈥淣o matter how well we鈥檙e all doing, the angst level has never been higher.”

Yet there are some darker clouds on the horizon, she added, noting that client relationships may be a bit shallow. For example, while just over one-third of large clients (36%) said they plan to increase their legal spend in the coming year, less than one-quarter of that spend (23%) goes to the firm that the client uses most 鈥� a figure that has been dropping over the last several years. Indeed, that most-used firm now gets engaged for less than three work types, and only 15% of clients say they will use their most-used firm more in the coming year.

Not surprisingly then, these figures weighed heavily as panels of top lawyers and law firm marketing and business development specialists discussed these matters during the Forum.

鈥淐learly, the softening of client relationships is a key piece of this,鈥� said one business development officer. 鈥淎nd you can see that in RFPs and the level of transparency that clients are asking for. I think a lot of work needs to be done by law firms to ensure these deeper trusting relationships with clients.鈥�

Others on the panel agreed. 鈥淔inancially we鈥檙e doing very well, but we should be looking at what has changed with the clients,鈥� one said, adding that many outside law firms may not have fully processed the impact the global pandemic has had on client relationships over the ensuing five years.

What鈥檚 changed in clients鈥� minds?

Understanding and adapting to this change in clients鈥� mindsets should be mission critical for law firms today. Indeed, all other initiatives 鈥� collaboration, pricing, business development, and more 鈥� will flounder on the rocks if law firms don鈥檛 engage with their clients directly. And the primary result of that engagement should have law firms coming away with an understanding of what clients want and need and, even more importantly, where clients see their outside firms failing to meet those needs.

Though obviously a difficult conversation, this level of client engagement is the only way firms are going to be able to deliver for clients while remaining sustainable, innovative, and profitable themselves.

You can read the full here

Perhaps the most dramatic shift these panelists perceive is the change in client expectations around AI. Several noted that there is a growing disconnect between what clients believe AI should enable law firms to do and what firms are actually delivering 鈥� and many said this was the fault of poor communication. For example, RFPs now routinely include references to AI, with clients moving from a stance of caution 鈥� You can use AI, but not with my data 鈥� to one of collaboration 鈥� Where can we work together within the AI space? This rapid evolution requires firms to be able to communicate their clear roadmap for AI adoption and pricing innovation that is understood by partners and can be conveyed easily to clients.

鈥淭ransparency and communication are paramount,鈥� offered one law firm executive. 鈥淔irms must be able to explain their approach to AI and demonstrate its value to clients.鈥� In fact, several panelists suggested that the best opportunities to deepen client relationships often arise in these conversations around technology and innovation.

In many cases it is the role of the Chief Marketing and Business Development Officers to lead these conversations, especially as these talks can help differentiate the firm. 鈥淭he leaders in these roles may have the most important job within their firm,鈥� noted one panelist. 鈥淭he capability of these roles to see outside the walls of the firm is incredibly important.鈥�

Several panelists pointed out that increasingly in today鈥檚 crowded marketplace, differentiation is more vital than ever, yet seemingly more difficult to achieve. 鈥淪ometimes it does come down to responsiveness and speed 鈥� these age-old client service tenants that we鈥檝e all pursued forever,鈥� said another firm marketing professional.

In fact, according to 成人VR视频 Institute data, clients look at several areas of differentiation when considering outside legal services, including the firm鈥檚 AI implementation, with 40% of clients citing that. And while clients ranked both cost efficiency and the use of value-based pricing lower, at 29% and 16% respectively, many law firm leaders said they consider pricing a critical challenge for the industry, especially given the mounting pressure on the traditional billable hour model.

鈥淲e need to get clients to look at value, and we need to get our own partners to look at our own value proposition,鈥� explained one firm leader. 鈥淚f we can鈥檛 segment the work and see what it takes to deliver this, we are in trouble.鈥�

As the Forum discussions illustrated, as clients become much more sophisticated around pricing, law firms have to make sure their lawyers and partners can communicate the firm鈥檚 value to clients. 鈥淲e, as law firm leaders, need to have confidence in what are partners are saying 鈥� I mean, that鈥檚 true marketing 鈥� and we need to talk through these issues with partners, so everyone is more comfortable addressing this with clients.鈥�

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

Jump to 鈫�

2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market

As the data underpinning the just-released 2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market 鈥� published jointly by the 成人VR视频 Institute and the Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law 鈥� makes clear, the industry is experiencing its own tectonic moment. Fundamental forces such as shifting client power, economic instability, and technological disruption are pushing some firms to extraordinary heights while leaving others on increasingly unstable ground.

This year’s report examines how the legal market’s current elevation came to be, why it may not last, and what firms can do now to prepare for the inevitable shift.

Key findings in the report

Some of the key findings discussed in this year鈥檚 report include:

• • • Unprecedented demand surge amid market redistribution 鈥� The US legal market experienced some of the strongest demand growth in more than a decade, driven in part by regulatory shifts and geoeconomic instability. Critically, smaller firms captured the lion’s share of growth as clients moved demand from the most expensive firms to lower-cost alternatives.
    • Intense expense growth 鈥� Technology spending and talent costs are rising rapidly, with firms aggressively investing in AI capabilities while simultaneously expanding headcount. This dual arms race is sustainable only so long as demand and rate growth can be maintained as well.
    • Structural business model conflict 鈥� The industry remains trapped between transformative technology and outdated billing structures. Despite heavy AI investments that will fundamentally alter how legal work is performed, 90% of legal dollars still flow through hourly billing arrangements that may no longer reflect the value delivered.
    • Deteriorating buyer sentiment 鈥� Many corporate general counsels (GCs) are signaling that they are considering significant spending pullbacks ahead, with Net Spend Anticipation dropping to levels not seen since the pandemic. Financial forecasts increasingly point to contraction by mid-2026.
    • Historical warning patterns 鈥� Today’s legal market dynamics (represented by booming demand amid instability, runaway expenses, and universal optimism) closely mirror the conditions that preceded previous industry downturns in 2007 and 2021.

As the report makes clear, the challenges ahead are significant. The same forces creating today’s peaks are simultaneously undermining the ground beneath them. The surge in demand stems not from economic health but from chaos 鈥� trade wars, regulatory upheaval, and geopolitical tensions 鈥� all while GCs face stagnant budgets and intensifying pressure to demonstrate value.

While much of this is outside firms’ control, however, their response to it is not. The report clearly shows that those firms that use the current boom to reinforce their footing by modernizing pricing models, strengthening client relationships, and deploying technology in ways that deliver measurable value rather than marketing gloss will be best positioned for what comes next.

As this year’s report illustrates, 2025 was less a summit than an inflection point. The firms that treat elevation as permanence may find, as countless mountain ranges have over geologic time, that height is not a promise 鈥� it’s a phase.

You can download

a full copy of “2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market,” published jointly by the 成人VR视频 Institute and the Center on Ethics and the Legal Profession at Georgetown Law, by filling out the form below:

Key takeaways:

• • • Legal professionals face tighter procedural constraints 鈥� The shift to legitimate interest and stricter suspension rules limit the scope of litigation, requiring claims of more precise harm and reducing early judicial intervention.

    • Stricter judicial suspension powers 鈥� Judges now face tighter rules when granting suspensions and need to prioritize public interest and order over individual or corporate requests.

    • Compliance and financial counsel must prepare for UIF scrutiny 鈥� Expanded authority for Mexico鈥檚 Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) means frozen assets may remain inaccessible despite amparo filings, necessitating stronger defense strategies and deeper expertise in financial legality.

In Mexico, the Amparo Law is one of the most important legal tools for protecting individual rights. For legal professionals, amparo has long been a key tool to challenge government actions that impact clients鈥� operations or compliance. This legal action acts as a mechanism to enforce constitutional protections, preventing public authorities from being unfair or abusing their power.

In September, Mexico sought reform in many areas of this action, including seeking changes to . The update in Article 5 of the Amparo Law refines the definition of 鈥渓egitimate interest鈥� (inter茅s leg铆timo) while maintaining the concept of 鈥渓egal interest鈥� (inter茅s jur铆dico). Under the previous standard, which was introduced in the 2011 reform and formalized in 2013, practitioners could initiate amparo proceedings on behalf of clients who were affected in a general way 鈥� for example, by pollution, lack of access to public information, or harm to indigenous communities. Now, the law only allows a filing of an amparo when individuals are .

Judicial limits and augmented authority for UIF

Another important change in the 2025 reform relates to suspensions. In Mexico鈥檚 Amparo Law, a suspension is a temporary court order that stops administrative measures while the judge reviews the case. Before the current reform, judges had , even in cases that affected the public or large groups using their evolving jurisprudence.

Now, judges must follow stricter rules; for example, they cannot allow suspensions if these affect. This shift has direct implications for law firms because legal teams will need to reassess the likelihood of obtaining suspensions in cases involving administrative actions, especially those tied to public infrastructure or financial enforcement.

In Mexico, the Amparo Law is one of the most important legal tools for protecting individual rights. For legal professionals, amparo has long been a key tool to challenge government actions that impact clients鈥� operations or compliance.

The reform also limits suspensions, including investigations by the Federal Executive Branch, tax credit cases (unless the person pays a financial guarantee), preventive detention, and cases in which the country鈥檚 Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) is involved. The UIF works on cases in which individuals or entities are suspected of .

Lawyers and legal counsel, particularly those representing clients in financial and criminal matters, face new hurdles because of this reform. Even if an amparo is filed, bank accounts may remain frozen if there is suspicion of links to criminal organizations. This forces legal teams to develop more robust strategies for contesting UIF actions. Similarly, tax professionals must also adjust to the new reality. The reform limits the use of amparo to delay tax payments or challenge tax credit denials. Clients who previously relied on legal maneuvers to postpone payments or other obligations will now need to provide financial guarantees or face immediate enforcement. This increases pressure on tax advisors to ensure compliance and to anticipate UIF scrutiny.

Another consideration is whether UIF鈥檚 legal counsel itself can verify the legality of resources, a process that requires specialized knowledge. In some cases, public interest and public order may be referenced in general terms rather than supported by specific evidence, thus placing additional burdens on legal professionals to challenge such claims effectively.

In contrast to the concerns about qualified personnel and individual rights, the government explains that the reform helps stop powerful groups 鈥� those that can afford to pay a lawyer and other legal expenses, as opposed to common citizens 鈥� from to avoid paying taxes or slowing down legal actions.

Modernizing the amparo process through digital reforms

The September reform is expected to expand and reinforce the digital modernization initiatives introduced in the and other earlier reforms, much of which focused on using technology to improve the amparo process. For example, lawyers must now adapt to mandatory digital procedures; and Article 3 now allows people to send documents either online or on paper. (According to the reform, however, if someone has an account in the Federal Judiciary鈥檚 Online Services Portal, they must use it to send and receive documents.)

While this shift standardizes communication, it may challenge those firms with limited digital infrastructure or clients in rural areas.

The reform also supports using electronic signatures for all legal steps. Previously, digital signatures were not accepted in the same way by all courts. This change simplifies filings and enhances procedural clarity, but it also requires law firms and tax advisors to update their systems and train staff on secure digital authentication.

Lawyers and legal counsel, particularly those representing clients in financial and criminal matters, face new hurdles because of this reform. Even if an amparo is filed, bank accounts may remain frozen if there is suspicion of links to criminal organizations.

In addition to reforms designed to enhance system functionality, further modifications have been introduced to decrease the number of cases and enable judges to reach decisions more efficiently. In the past, judges had flexible timelines, which often resulted in delays. The reform now sets clearer limits; for example, in indirect amparo cases, judges must give a ruling within 90 calendar days. This accelerates case resolution but also increases pressure on judicial teams to manage caseloads efficiently and consistently.

Adapting to Mexico鈥檚 amparo reform

The September reform could reshape the legal landscape for judges, attorneys, and tax professionals by reversing the progress made since the 2011 changes, which aimed to protect Constitutional rights more strongly. If this happens, the reform may weaken the procedural tools that legal professionals use to defend their clients 鈥� people and companies alike 鈥� against government actions. As a result, we may see a noticeable shift in litigation demand, with fewer opportunities for constitutional defense and more pressure on legal teams to adapt to narrower procedural options. Contributing to this, the new requirements and streamlined procedures could discourage frivolous claims, reducing the volume of cases that firms must manage.

For judges, the reform introduces a more rigid framework. Previously, collective actions based on the prior definition of legitimate interest delayed major infrastructure projects. By requiring direct harm under the new standard, judicial discretion is curtailed, and courts are expected to prioritize administrative efficiency over broad social concerns. In addition, the UIF is now better positioned to freeze illicit funds, which helps lower the chances of situations such as the release of the 27 billion pesos frozen between 2018 and 2025. Legal teams must now prepare for more aggressive enforcement and fewer procedural safeguards.

Finally, the reform has introduced significant elements to enhance transparency and accountability in the amparo process. By introducing requirements for digital submissions and establishing clear deadlines, the changes aim to reduce corruption and confusion, but courts and professionals may struggle with the new digital tools because of their own limited access to technology. Successful adoption of this reform will depend on training judges, UIF staff, and legal teams to ensure procedural compliance and maintain the public trust.

You can find more on the legal and regulatory issues facing Mexico here

Key takeaways in Q3:

• • • Strong Q3 performance 鈥� The Law Firm Financial Index (LFFI) score increased by 8 points compared to Q2 2025, highlighting a quarter of robust demand and industry resilience.

    • Client-driven demand shift 鈥� Midsize law firms led the increase in transactional practices, while Am Law Second Hundred firms dominated counter-cyclical growth, driven by large corporate clients shifting work to lower-rate providers.

    • Strategic caution advised 鈥� Persistent risks, rising costs, and unresolved long-term challenges mean firms must remain cautious and strategic.

Law firms demonstrated remarkable performance through a geopolitically tense third quarter of 2025, as clients increasingly sought legal guidance to navigate market complexity and global uncertainty. This surge in demand propelled the 成人VR视频庐 Institute鈥檚 Law Firm Financial Index (LFFI) score to 63 for the third quarter, marking a notable rise from earlier in the year.

Jump to 鈫�

Q3 2025 Law Firm Financial Index

Yet, as a closer look reveals, the industry鈥檚 strong performance sits atop tectonic forces that, while driving change, also carry the potential to disrupt long-term stability.

Firms on shifting ground

At the core of this shift is a surge in client activity that鈥檚 breaking records 鈥� and coinciding with a period in which the price for legal services is rising like never before. Transactional practices are thriving, with mergers and acquisitions, corporate law, real estate, and tax practices seeing a marked uptick in demand. Midsize firms have stepped into leadership roles within these practices, demonstrating agility and resilience as they capture fresh business opportunities and respond swiftly to evolving client needs.

However, this isn鈥檛 just a story of expansion. The competitive landscape is being redrawn as clients reassess their legal partnerships. Many are prioritizing value and flexibility, shifting work to firms that offer more competitive pricing 鈥� a trend we鈥檝e noticed for the past year or so. This is obviously working to the advantage of those firms seeing significant demand growth as a result, but the more expensive law firms are also seeing boosted performance, as the trend helps them secure higher rates on the work they do maintain.

In response to this rising demand, many firms 鈥� especially those in the Midsize and Second Hundred tiers 鈥� are investing heavily in talent and technology. Even as the cost of hiring continues to climb, some firms are broadening their search beyond traditional legal roles to include specialists in technology, data, and knowledge management. These strategic hires are aimed at boosting operational efficiency and enhancing client service in an increasingly AI-driven environment.

With overhead rising and competitive pressures mounting, law firms must strike a careful balance between strategic investment and disciplined cost management.

Emerging fault lines of legal strategy

As the Q3 2025 LFFI report shows, the current environment is marked by both promise and risk. Economic and geopolitical uncertainties loom large, and the next shake-up could be just around the corner. Law firms are enjoying a period of robust growth certainly, but the ground beneath them remains unsettled. The ability to navigate uncertainty, anticipate change, and respond with agility will be critical in the months ahead.

For law firm leaders, partners, and strategists, this is a moment to reflect on the lessons of the past and to prepare for the challenges of the future. The industry rewards those who can balance ambition with caution, invest wisely in talent and technology, and stay attuned to the evolving needs of clients. A firm鈥檚 success will depend on its leaders鈥� ability to rise above the turbulence and seize the opportunities that lie ahead.

As the legal landscape continues to shift, one thing is clear: The forces reshaping the industry demand careful navigation, and firms must now approach the path forward with greater caution and strategic foresight.

You can download

a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute’s “Q3 2025 Law Firm Financial Index” by filling out the form below:

Key findings:

• • • Large firms are disrupting the traditional hierarchy 鈥� Large firms have outpaced the Big 8 in growth and profitability by scaling aggressively and capturing market share.
    • However, geoeconomic disruption has favored the Big 8 鈥� When global conditions shifted, Big 8 firms saw a significant increase in performance as Large firms began to faulter.
    • GenAI is reshaping legal operations 鈥� Australian firms are leading globally in adoption of AI, leveraging advanced tech to boost efficiency, training, and client service.

With the end of the 2024 Australian financial year (FY 2024) in June, the market concluded one of its most dynamic years, marked by fierce competition, strategic evolution, and technological disruption.

To examine these factors more deeply, the 成人VR视频 Institute has published its , a joint publication with Melbourne Law School, which offers a comprehensive view of the evolving landscape for the Australian legal market.

Jump to 鈫�

Australia State of the Legal Market 2025

The latest report reveals a market split between two dominant groups that are taking very different approaches to the racetrack. First, the prestigious Big 8 law firms, which have traditionally found success leaning on legacy and rate strength; and second, the rapidly rising Large law firms, which were beginning to outpace the pack by pursuing aggressive growth and scaling.

At the start of the most recent leg of this race (the beginning of FY 2024), Large firms seemed likely to continue their streak of aggressive growth in which they鈥檝e been outpacing the Big 8. However, in the last couple months of the past fiscal year, conditions changed in a way that may reshape the competition for the foreseeable future.

Strong performance amid challenges

Despite strong performance across the sector, the report highlights several challenges that firms must address. For example, talent management is becoming increasingly complex as firms expand and compete for skilled professionals, with direct expenses facing sharp acceleration. For years, Australian firms have been in an aggressive growth phase, pushing to capture a veritable cornucopia of legal demand. Now, as demand growth seems to be faltering, these firms are having to grapple with tough decisions regarding the growth they鈥檙e continuing to see in headcount and expenses.

Meanwhile, the rise of generative AI (GenAI) is shifting client expectations and challenging traditional pricing models, pushing firms to rethink how they deliver and value their legal service offerings. While GenAI may well have unlocked greater capacity for these firms to provide additional value per hour, it also poses challenges to the ways firms provide services and measure productivity. Australian firms have spent significantly to digitally transform their services, but a stress test for these innovations may well be around the corner.

Looking ahead, adaptability will be critical, the report shows. Australian law firms must use the momentum of a still profitable year to sharpen their operations 鈥� from technology integration to client engagement strategies. Those firms that embrace change and align their models with evolving client needs will be best positioned to thrive in a more volatile and fast-moving legal landscape. However, those that assume the strategies of the past will continue to serve them well may find themselves left behind. Indeed, Large firms have exemplified the value of adopting change and a growth mindset since the pandemic, yet the Big 8 are now suggesting that another turning point is already underway.

Ultimately, the future of Australia鈥檚 legal market won鈥檛 be decided by size or legacy alone. How this race ends will depend on how adaptable these firms are to the changing conditions on the track.

You can download

a full copy of the report, from the 成人VR视频 Institute and Melbourne Law School here

Jump to 鈫�

成人VR视频庐 Institute Law Firm Financial Index Report

Key takeaways in Q2

• • • The Law Firm Financial Index (LFFI) score increased by 4 points compared to Q1 2025, reflecting a surprisingly stable quarter with growing legal demand.
    • Midsize law firms and Second Hundred firms experienced stronger revenue growth, outperforming Am Law 100 firms.
    • Overhead and talent-related expenses continue to rise, especially in areas like technology and knowledge management.

A stable quarter, but one with mixed signals

As said, Q2 2025 stood out for its unexpected stability. Despite the uncertain geopolitical and economic environment, law firms experienced a notable rise in demand for legal services, a development that was potentially driven by clients seeking expert guidance amid growing international tensions and regulatory uncertainty.

However, this apparent calm may be misleading. Counter-cyclical practices 鈥� such as litigation, bankruptcy and labor & employment 鈥� have gained prominence. Litigation leads the race as the fastest-growing area, while tax and labor also are showing signs of an upswing.

The second quarter also saw an acceleration in a longstanding trend within the competitive landscape. Midsize and Am Law Second Hundred firms continued to be the primary sources that are driving overall growth, leading in revenue growth and outperforming the traditionally dominant Am Law 100. Meanwhile, Am Law 100 firms faced slowdowns in several practice areas and reduced headcount growth, highlighting the challenges of scale amid an uncertain environment.

In an additional challenge, operating and talent costs continued to rise steadily. In Q2, firms invested heavily in strategic areas such as technology and knowledge management systems. These investments are no longer seen as optional 鈥� they are now considered essential for firms to maintain competitiveness and deliver value to increasingly demanding clients.

Can the legal sector hold steady amid uncertainty?

At first glance, financial indicators suggest a robust foundation in which law firms operate nowadays; however, within the legal sector, there is a growing sense that this stability may be short-lived. While it is tempting to think that the current moment will persist until year’s end and bring a return to normalcy, it appears as if the legal industry is now sitting in the calm eye of a hurricane, with darker skies on the horizon.

Adding to the complexity is the growing risk of a potential recession. While the current environment still allows for growth as lawyers facilitate all aspects of an economy in transition, the possibility of economic slowdown means that firms should prepare for or reassess their already existing recession plans. The lessons from previous downturns thus remain relevant: Revenues can decline rapidly when external conditions shift, while expenses tend to remain fixed and begin to exert added pressure on profits.

Simultaneously, clients seem to become more selective and cost-conscious, scrutinizing with which law firms or legal service providers new and existing work should land. This combination of rising costs and shifting client expectations demands that law firms enact a more strategic, flexible, and data-driven approach to maintain profitability in a rapidly evolving landscape. In this context, firms are encouraged to adopt a more cautious and preventive strategy 鈥� one that鈥檚 focused on long-term sustainability and risk mitigation.

You can download

a full copy of the 成人VR视频 Institute “Law Firm Financial Index” by filling out the form below: