Top Takeaways From the Chicago Legal Department Operations Roundtable

Generative AI is a moving target

In the survey, 58% of legal operations professionals cited pressure from executive leadership as one of the primary drivers for pursuing generative AI. With the growing momentum behind AI-based efficiency and innovation mandates, in-house teams are being pushed to move fast.

During the roundtable, many participants said they would answer certain questions differently today than they did six months ago when the survey was administered. For example, several people shared that their chief legal officers have recently indicated that using generative AI in legal is not only a mandate from executive leadership. It’s become a business obligation to find effective ways to use the technology. This sentiment rang true for a variety of professionals, from organizations across the spectrum from tech-resistant to highly innovative. 

In terms of how legal teams are using generative AI, there was significant discussion about how different teams are responding to mandates from leadership to incorporate the technology into their daily work. Some were highly focused on measuring and making progress toward efficiency gains they were trying to achieve with existing internal resources. These individuals said they were focused on a specific problem they had identified and then attempted to solve that problem with AI. For example, one professional explained a successful effort to conduct a first-level review on unreviewed bills, helping their attorneys reduce the time required to review invoices. Participants also acknowledged the importance of quality, well-organized data to their success. This was instrumental for the legal department that had succeeded in streamlining its billing review processes. 

Others were trying to incorporate AI for specific tasks but continued to struggle with integrating it into their standard workflows or identifying what to use it for in legal use cases. One roundtable participant said she implemented a brief internal survey to gauge the adoption of AI as a means to continuously evaluate the value being derived from such solutions. 

Pressure on outside counsel

Participants also discussed the ways they are articulating to outside counsel that they should use generative AI, how they should apply it and what the cost savings are expected to be. There was a general consensus that expectations for outside counsel have risen, especially around cost control, as some legal departments expressed that they view generative AI as a way to reduce reliance on outside counsel and cost-effectively maintain internal headcount.

Still, legal operations professionals have varying degrees of comfort with outside counsel using this technology. Those who had formed strong partnerships with their outside counsel were seeing the best outcomes: by asking their law firms to use AI and reduce their rates, they were pairing their requests to use AI to reduce rates with clear discussions of what that would entail.  

Even with clear parameters, however, AI has created some tension between in-house and outside legal. As legal teams dictate that their law firms must use AI in all matters and show how it’s saving money, they often in parallel prohibit counsel from using their data to train the firm’s models. This is reasonable, but if the scale of work for that client isn’t past a certain threshold, it becomes difficult for law firms to justify establishing and maintaining an isolated large language model instance. 

Generally, the roundtable discussion underscored the ongoing issue of inside counsel not always knowing how to leverage legal operations in leading negotiations with providers. Many technology and rate discussions continue to be counsel to counsel, versus legal operations to firm professionals, which undermines the impact legal operations teams can have on effectively managing outside spend and technology return on investment.  

Resource management driven by technology 

The roundtable also included a brief discussion on alternative legal service providers and expectations that they bring technology to the table. It was clear that legal departments are more comfortable having conversations about technology with ALSPs than they are with outside counsel. 

Additionally, participants said they believe AI will begin driving some internal headcount savings, though they remained unsure of exactly how that would manifest. Many indicated they’re looking for more understanding and guidance about how to navigate the tradeoffs and allocations of work between AI and internal resources. Anecdotally, as legal teams invest in AI, they are trying to stay budget neutral in 2026 and show cost savings in 2027, so many said they are waiting to add more people to their team until after they have some evidence as to the savings that AI might provide over the coming one to two years. 

Looking ahead, legal operations leaders understand their role in becoming more vocal about how their department approaches AI and responds to technology mandates. They are looking to demonstrate value, improve the balance across internal, external and technology resources, and set the tone for strategic innovation.

FTI Technology is proud to be the lead sponsor of the Blickstein Group’s 18th Annual Law Department Operations Survey.

Related topics:

The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of FTI Consulting, its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals.