Corporate legal departments have stopped asking whether their outside counsel use artificial intelligence. They now want to know how firms deploy it, what safeguards protect client data, and how attorneys supervise AI-assisted work. That shift is changing how law firms win and keep business, according to leaders at Vinson & Elkins, Crowell & Moring, Cozen O'Connor, and Blank Rome who spoke with The National Law Review.
In-house counsel are pressing for specifics: which AI models and platforms firms use, whether client data is retained or used for model training, what security controls exist, and how attorneys review AI output before it reaches the client. The conversation has moved from "Are you using AI?" to "How are you using it, and how are you controlling it?" said Andrew Woolf, Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer at Cozen O'Connor.
Aubrey Bishai, Chief Innovation Officer at Vinson & Elkins, described a similar evolution. Clients have shifted from saying "Don't use AI on my matters" to "Please use AI on my matters where it makes sense." The focus now is on where AI can appropriately support legal work while maintaining transparency between firms and in-house teams.
Innovation and governance are not competing priorities
Clients expect law firms to pursue efficiency without compromising confidentiality, quality, or professional judgment. "Innovation and AI governance aren't mutually exclusive; they reinforce each other," said Ashton Batchelor, Chief Innovation and Value Officer at Blank Rome.
Attorney accountability remains central to those expectations. "Ultimately what they are paying for is our lawyers' legal advice and judgment," said Alma Asay, Chief Innovation and Value Officer at Crowell & Moring. Clients expect attorneys to understand both the benefits and limitations of AI, verify AI-generated work independently, and take personal responsibility for the final product.
Firms that invest in strong security, quality control, and risk management are best positioned to scale AI responsibly, Woolf said. Those controls are not barriers to innovation; they are what make responsible deployment possible.
AI governance is now part of outside counsel selection
Clients are incorporating AI considerations into panel counsel selection, requests for proposals, outside counsel guidelines, and governance reviews. "It's not looking ahead, it's today," Asay said. RFPs now often require firms to explain how AI will be used on specific matters and to document governance policies, attorney supervision, and approved technologies.
Emerging governance trends include formal written AI frameworks, explicit supervisory responsibilities for attorneys overseeing AI-assisted work, and documentation of when and how AI is used. Batchelor compared the trajectory to cybersecurity requirements: "AI governance is becoming as ubiquitous as information security and pricing in outside counsel engagements."
AI conversations are reshaping client relationships
Beyond compliance and risk, AI discussions increasingly affect the broader attorney-client relationship. Clients want transparency about where AI adds value, where it should not be used, and how attorneys exercise judgment throughout AI-assisted workflows. Many firms are sharing lessons learned and collaborating with clients on AI-enabled legal processes.
"This is a relationship business at its core," Bishai said. AI is most valuable when it frees attorneys to spend more time applying expertise and judgment in service of clients, rather than replacing those human qualities. Woolf agreed, noting that "clients will expect firms to adapt their operating models so they can safely and reliably deliver high-quality legal service using AI tools paired with human judgment."
For legal professionals, the practical implication is clear: AI fluency is becoming a client-facing skill, not just an internal efficiency tool. Attorneys who can explain how AI supports their work, document its use, and articulate its limits will be better positioned to retain clients and win new ones. Resources like the AI Learning Path for Paralegals and broader AI for Legal training can help legal teams build that capability.
Why this matters for legal professionals
Corporate clients are no longer treating AI adoption as a differentiator - they expect it. The firms that win work will be those that can demonstrate responsible governance, attorney oversight, and transparent communication about how AI is used. For individual attorneys, that means developing the ability to work with AI tools, verify their output, and explain their use to clients who are increasingly sophisticated about the technology. Legal professionals who treat AI competence as a core part of client service, rather than an optional technical skill, will be better positioned as these expectations continue to harden.
Your membership also unlocks:
