For years, ranking on the first page of Google was the goal, and with good reason. Traditional search engines still drive most of the traffic that businesses depend on. But clients are now finding legal help in new ways, and a surprising number of them never click a single result to do so.

Most firm owners and marketing professionals are familiar with SEO, or search engine optimization. Today’s research landscape has introduced another acronym worth knowing: GEO, or generative engine optimization. GEO is the practice of making a firm visible to AI systems rather than only to search engines. A prospective client might now use ChatGPT to look for a business attorney and receive a direct AI generated answer that names three firms and recommends one. A firm absent from that answer was never truly in the running.

This is why GEO has become one of the most significant shifts in legal marketing.

AI generated answers now appear in 16.48 percent of all United States Google searches, more than double their presence earlier in 2025. Potential clients are also turning directly to AI chatbots such as ChatGPT and Perplexity to research attorneys and ask for recommendations. For law firms, this evolution is already reshaping how clients find, evaluate and contact them.

Visibility now means more than a Google ranking. It means being cited, trusted and understood by AI systems that determine what potential clients see before they ever reach a firm’s website.

How AI Search Works and Why It Differs from Google

AI search refers to any search experience in which artificial intelligence synthesises information from multiple sources and presents a generated answer. Instead of ten blue links, users receive a direct summary, sometimes with linked citations.

The most common forms at present include Google AI Overviews, which appear at the top of search results for a growing range of queries; Google AI Mode, a search experience built directly into Google that responds to queries conversationally without a traditional list of results; and AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude and Perplexity, which potential clients may consult directly when researching legal questions or seeking referrals.

The key difference from traditional search is that AI systems do not rank pages. They decide which sources are worth citing. Visibility therefore is no longer about page position or click volume. It is measured by citations, share of voice (how often a firm appears relative to competitors in AI generated answers) and brand mentions within those answers.

Traditional Search Compared to AI Search

Traditional search ranks pages sequentially, whereas AI search synthesises and summarises information from multiple sources. In traditional search, visibility is measured by ranking position and clicks. In AI search, visibility is measured by citation inclusion, brand mentions and share of voice. User behaviour also differs. Traditional search users click through to websites, while AI search users often receive answers directly without clicking anywhere. Success in traditional search depends on keywords, backlinks and technical SEO. Success in AI search depends on topical authority, structured content and entity trust. Google and Bing represent the traditional model. ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews and Google AI Mode represent the AI model.

What GEO Means for Law Firms

GEO for law firms is the practice of structuring an online presence so that AI systems are more likely to surface the firm in generated answers. Where traditional SEO asks how to rank higher on Google, GEO asks how to get cited when AI answers a legal question.

Readers may also come across the term answer engine optimization, or AEO, which is often used interchangeably with GEO. Some argue that AEO focuses on optimising for direct answers in voice search and snippets such as FAQs and summaries, while GEO is broader and covers everything influencing whether AI systems cite a firm. In practice the distinction rarely matters. Whether it is called GEO or AEO, the goal is the same: earning a place in AI generated responses rather than merely a position in search rankings.

The good news is that GEO is not a complete reinvention of existing practice. In many cases it builds directly on solid SEO foundations. A well structured website, authoritative practice area content, consistent directory listings and strong reviews all matter for traditional search and for AI visibility. GEO asks firms to go further in a few specific areas, but it begins with the same groundwork.

How AI Search Is Changing Legal Marketing

The way clients find legal help has changed more quickly than most firms have adjusted to. The effects are already showing in several areas.

More Searches End Without a Click

More than half of all Google searches now end without a click to any website, according to Search Engine Land. Users receive their answer and move on. Firms are now competing to be part of the response itself. If AI is answering the question, users have no need to visit a website. When a Google AI Overview is present, data shows it correlates with a 58 percent lower average click through rate for the top ranking page. In practical terms, a firm can hold the number one spot and still receive significantly less traffic than before.

Ranking First No Longer Guarantees Exposure

AI systems draw from multiple sources and cite only a subset of them. Firms that do not rank first can still be mentioned in AI responses, while firms that do rank first may be passed over entirely. Visibility now includes both clicks and citations.

This means legal marketing has two parallel goals: performing well in traditional search and earning trust signals that make AI systems more likely to reference the firm.

Authority and Structure Matter More Than Ever

AI evaluates content differently than a traditional search algorithm does. Topical depth, formatting clarity, brand consistency and credibility signals all factor in. To perform well in AI search, firms need a well organised website, authoritative practice area content and a credible consistent presence across the web. These are precisely the conditions GEO is designed to build, and firms that have already invested in good SEO are often closer to this than they realise.

How AI Decides Which Firms to Mention

AI platforms do not publish a definitive rulebook for citation selection. However, emerging research and observed patterns point to several consistent factors.

Topical authority matters a great deal. AI favours sources that demonstrate comprehensive expert coverage of a subject. Firms with deep well organised content across every dimension of a practice area hold a real advantage. Breadth and depth together signal genuine expertise, and AI systems reward that.

Structured extractable formatting is equally important. For content to be cited, it must first be readable by AI. Pages with clear headings, concise standalone paragraphs and direct answers to specific questions are far easier to parse and cite. Content buried in dense prose or hidden behind paywalls is effectively invisible.

Entity and brand signals also carry weight. Every signal a firm puts out across the web builds a picture of who it is. NAP consistency (name, address and phone number), media mentions, directory listings, schema markup and reviews all contribute. A firm appearing consistently and credibly across many sources earns stronger recognition, and that recognition influences whether AI treats it as a trustworthy source worth citing.

How Firms Can Improve Visibility in AI Search

Improving visibility in AI search comes down to a few specific levers. Some require new work. Others build directly on existing efforts.

Ensure AI can access the content. AI cannot cite what it cannot crawl. Firms should confirm they have not inadvertently blocked AI crawlers, and that key practice area pages are indexable, technically sound and not hidden behind login walls or paywalls. In practice this means navigating to the website’s robots.txt file (usually at yourfirm.com/robots.txt) and checking whether GPTBot or Google Extended appear under any Disallow rules. Removing those rules opens the content to AI crawlers. A web developer can check this in minutes.

Align content with what clients are actually asking. AI search is driven by conversational queries. Users ask full questions such as “What should I do if I am facing a business dispute in [city]?” and AI surfaces the sources that answer those questions best. Firms should audit existing content against real client questions, use natural language and lead with the answer before moving into analysis. If a person scanning the page cannot immediately see what question is being answered, AI probably will not cite it either. Consider the questions clients ask in the first five minutes of a consultation. “How do I change my last name after getting married?” or “Can we create a prenuptial agreement without a lawyer?” are the kinds of questions AI answers every day. If family law pages do not address them clearly, visibility is being left on the table.

Build structured topic clusters by practice area. Firms should create one authoritative pillar page for each practice area that establishes depth and expertise, then build supporting content around it: subtopic pages, FAQ sections and related guides connected through internal links that reinforce the relationships between them. This structure helps AI understand that a firm has broad organised expertise in an area rather than a handful of loosely connected pages. A personal injury firm, for example, might have a pillar page titled “Personal Injury Law: What You Need to Know” linking out to supporting pages on car accidents, slip and fall claims and medical malpractice. Each supporting page links back to the pillar, creating a web of content that signals depth to AI.

Strengthen machine readability and trust signals. Schema markup is structured data that helps search engines and AI systems understand content, and it is particularly important for law firms. Implementing LegalService, Attorney, FAQ, LocalBusiness and Review schema types gives AI systems a verified structured understanding of who the firm is, what it does and where it operates. Schema markup is invisible to visitors but readable by AI. An Attorney schema on a team page tells AI the lawyers’ names, credentials and practice areas. A LocalBusiness schema on a contact page confirms address and phone number. An FAQ schema on a practice area page makes questions and answers directly extractable. A web developer can implement these, and platforms such as Yoast SEO for WordPress offer guided schema setup.

Keep content fresh. For AI systems, recency is a credibility signal. Outdated statistics and superseded legal references suggest a firm that is not keeping pace, which may be enough for AI to look elsewhere. Not everything needs updating, but anything no longer accurate should be refreshed. Setting a recurring quarterly reminder to review top practice area pages is a practical habit. Firms should look for dated statistics, references to specific laws or regulations and any mention of current rules or limits. A workers’ compensation page referencing 2021 benefit caps is a credibility flag for both AI and readers.

Measuring and Monitoring AI Visibility

Most standard analytics tools do not yet track AI visibility, but that is no reason to ignore it. Firms should treat it as an emerging marketing channel with its own measurement discipline.

Start with prompt testing. Regularly search AI platforms using queries potential clients might use, such as “Best [practice area] lawyer in [city],” “How do I find a [practice area] attorney” or “[Practice area] law firm near me.” Note whether the firm appears, how it is described and which competitors are cited alongside it.

Track patterns over time. Running the same key queries on a regular basis and noting what has changed builds a clearer picture. If certain competitors consistently appear and the firm does not, examining their content structure, depth and credibility signals is a good next step. Bing Webmaster Tools offers some insight into AI related search performance and is worth monitoring alongside Google Search Console. Dedicated tools for tracking AI citations and share of voice are emerging as AI search matures and are worth evaluating as part of the broader marketing stack.

Run a content gap analysis. Cross referencing prompt testing results against existing content reveals where AI is not citing the firm for a practice area it actively serves. That is a signal the content in that area may lack depth, structure or freshness, and it points to where investment should go next.

Adjust based on findings. Citation patterns reveal gaps in topical authority, formatting and credibility signals. Treating AI visibility as an ongoing discipline rather than a one off audit sharpens the picture every month.

Closing Thoughts

Not long ago, being found online meant one thing: ranking on page one of Google. Firms invested in keywords, backlinks and technical SEO, and that investment generally paid off.

The rules have expanded. For a growing number of prospective clients, AI generated answers are already determining who gets called, who gets contacted and who never enters the conversation at all. The firms appearing in those answers are not there by accident. They have built the kind of online presence AI systems recognise as credible and worth citing.

Most of that work begins in familiar territory. A well structured website, strong practice area content, consistent directory listings and current information form the foundations of both good SEO and GEO. Any firm willing to invest in these fundamentals can earn a place in AI generated answers.

Whether the approach is framed as GEO or AEO, a practical starting point is running test prompts related to the firm’s practice areas to see where it stands, then following the steps outlined above to close the gaps.

The post Generative Engine Optimization for Law Firms: Staying Visible in 2026 first appeared on Human And Legal.

For law firms, delayed payments create real operational friction. Cash flow becomes unpredictable, staff spend hours chasing invoices and the risk of writing off unpaid work grows.

The solution is not more aggressive follow up. It is a preventive, system driven approach. Clear invoices, structured payment options and automated reminders make paying easier for clients while keeping revenue steady for the firm.

This article outlines the practices that help law firms collect on time and maintain reliable cash flow.

Why clients delay paying law firms

Most delays have little to do with money. They come down to clarity, timing and convenience. Understanding the operational and psychological factors at play helps explain how clients perceive and pay for legal services.

The psychology of paying for legal services

Unlike a physical product, legal work is largely intangible. By the time the invoice arrives, the client may no longer feel the urgency or emotional weight of the original problem that led them to hire a lawyer. Without that sense of pressure, some clients begin to wonder what exactly they are paying for.

Hesitation around legal bills typically comes from a few recurring factors:

• Intangible deliverables. Much of a lawyer’s value is produced behind the scenes. When clients cannot see the hours spent on research or strategy, the invoice may not feel representative of the effort involved.
• Uncertain outcomes. Legal results are rarely guaranteed. Clients often resist paying for effort when the result did not match their hopes.
• Delayed value. Preventive work such as contract drafting or compliance reviews may not feel immediately valuable, even though it protects clients from larger problems later.
• Stressful contexts. Litigation or investigations carry heavy emotional and financial pressure. For a client already in crisis mode, a legal bill becomes one more stressor and payment often waits until the situation settles.

Why clients delay even when they can afford to pay

Even clients with the means to pay may hesitate when invoices feel unclear or disconnected from the work. When deliverables or timelines are not well understood, payment tends to slow down.

Unclear billing expectations

When bills arrive late, lack detail or feel vague, clients often pause to review charges or ask questions. A few common issues create this friction:

• Delayed time entries. Recording work long after it happens leads to imprecise descriptions and invites client questions. For hourly matters, clients expect a clear record of where their money went.
• Vague task descriptions. Entries such as review documents or prepare correspondence list tasks without revealing the actual substance of the work. Clients respond better when entries describe milestones, case developments or outcomes.
• Expectation gaps. Clients often judge bills against results rather than hours. Without clear expectations about how a matter will unfold, what the timeline looks like and what fees apply, clients may resist when work feels slow or costly.
• Inconsistent billing cadence. Irregular or late invoices can catch clients off guard. Receiving two invoices close together or one long after the work was completed often creates confusion and delays.

How invoice clarity affects payment speed

Clear invoices help clients quickly see what was done and why it mattered. When descriptions are vague or overly technical, clients pause to review or seek clarification, which slows the entire collection process.

Outdated and inefficient internal systems

Many collection problems begin long before an invoice reaches a client. If lawyers struggle to submit timesheets or fail to record time in the first place, the firm is already behind. Hand typed bills that need manual review only slow things further.

Once invoices go out, staff can spend hours tracking payments, sending reminders and reconciling cheques that take days to clear. Even a single extra hour of administrative work each day adds up to more than twenty hours a month.

Inefficient systems also create barriers for clients who are ready to pay. Every extra step increases the chance that a client gets distracted and forgets. Asking clients to pay by cheque is a clear example. An empty chequebook, a missing stamp or a busy week can easily delay payment for days.

Affordability constraints

Not every late payment reflects unwillingness. Some clients genuinely face cash flow pressure or are caught off guard by a large invoice. Bill shock from unexpectedly large bills can slow payment or trigger disputes. Interim billing and upfront expectations help prevent this.

Structured payment options give clients flexibility while keeping firm cash flow steady. Predictable pricing such as flat fees for routine work makes payment easier because clients see costs upfront and worry less about overruns. Firms benefit too through less administrative work and more predictable revenue, particularly as efficiency gains from AI shift routine tasks away from the billable hour.

Do some practice areas face higher late payment risk?

Litigation and complex disputes often see slower payments because outcomes are uncertain. Transactional work tied to clear milestones tends to be paid faster.

Collection rates also vary by practice area. Civil rights and constitutional law matters have shown rates as low as 75 percent, while bankruptcy work sits around 77 percent. Cases involving financial strain or high stress personal issues carry greater risk because clients may prioritise immediate expenses once the crisis passes.

Payment patterns also vary by client and matter type:

• Individuals may face cash flow pressure, emotional strain or bill shock.
• Businesses often follow structured approval and budgeting processes that slow payment.
• Litigation matters can see payment delays while outcomes remain uncertain.
• Transactional matters linked to specific deliverables usually move faster and more predictably.

Addressing affordability early, setting clear expectations and offering flexible or flat fee options helps firms reduce late payments and keep collections steady.

How law firms can encourage on time payment

Firms collect faster when they automate accurate transparent invoices and make digital payment effortless. Consistently showing value shifts the firm from reactive chasing to predictable system driven cash flow.

Collections practices that prevent late payments

Effective billing depends on more than reminders. Clients pay promptly when they understand the value delivered, can read the invoice easily and can act on it without friction.

Send accurate invoices quickly

Late payments often begin with late billing. When invoices arrive weeks after the work was done, clients struggle to connect charges to the value delivered. A proactive billing cycle starts with capturing time as work happens and issuing invoices on a reliable schedule.

Milestone billing strengthens clarity further. Invoices tied to specific deliverables rather than a block of hours show clients exactly what they are paying for. When work links to results, trust rises and payments follow faster.

A billing system that handles client invoicing keeps firms organised and can generate bills automatically on a preset schedule. Automated invoice generation based on logged work reduces errors, keeps formatting consistent and frees staff for higher value tasks.

Why sending invoices sooner increases collection rates

Invoices sent close to the work are paid faster because clients still remember the value clearly. When a matter feels active, the bill sits high on the list of priorities rather than competing with older expenses.

When to send a legal invoice for the fastest payment

Timing matters more than many firms realise. Invoices should go out immediately after meaningful work or the completion of a key phase. Clients who still recall the value delivered are more likely to pay promptly. Payment expectations should ideally be established before work on the matter begins.

Automate reminders instead of chasing manually

Following up on late invoices consumes significant staff time. Tracking bills, sending emails and making calls pulls people away from client work and firm development. A scheduled automated reminder system replaces reactive chasing with consistent follow up that runs on its own.

Make payment simple and immediate

Even clients who want to pay often meet friction at the point of payment. Cheques get lost, bank transfers lag and invoices sit waiting. Removing those barriers dramatically improves collections.

Digital payment options make a clear difference. Credit card, ACH, tap to pay and other electronic methods let clients pay the moment they receive an invoice. Client portals and mobile friendly checkout pages mean payment can happen immediately, before distraction sets in. Firms that adopt these tools see faster payment, fewer follow ups and fewer cheque delays.

Integrated payment platforms allow clients to pay directly from an invoice in a secure and simple flow. Mobile ready options help clients act in the moment and give firms more predictable cash flow.

Offer structured payment flexibility

When clients face genuine barriers to paying, firms have tools that support them while keeping cash flow steady.

Payment plans are a practical option. Firms can structure them around the number and size of instalments or the period over which payment will be completed.

Third party financing services are another route. With these services, the firm receives the full amount upfront while the client pays the balance in instalments over time.

What to do when a client will not pay

Early warning signs of collection risk

Warning signs usually appear before an invoice becomes overdue. Spotting them early helps the firm act quickly and avoid escalation:

• Retainer hesitation. A delay in topping up a retainer can signal cash flow problems or reduced willingness to pay.
• Frequent invoice queries. Repeated questions about charges often point to a disconnect between the client’s expectations and the work being done.
• Scope pushback. Questioning tasks may reflect rising price sensitivity or fear of going over budget.
• Communication gaps. When a client goes quiet, payment delays often follow.
• Bill shock. Strong reactions to an invoice usually mean expectations were not managed early enough.

Practical steps to secure payment

When an invoice remains unpaid, a structured and proactive approach reduces risk while protecting the client relationship. Useful steps include:

• Offer easy payment options. Use digital payment tools that allow clients to pay in a single click.
• Review engagement terms. Ensure agreements clearly set out scope, fees and payment expectations.
• Communicate early. Raise concerns before an invoice slips into overdue status.
• Pause work when necessary. Protect firm resources while remaining professional in tone.
• Set escalation thresholds. Decide in advance when to escalate or write off overdue invoices so decisions are consistent and timely.
• Protect the relationship. Many unpaid invoices come from value or expectation gaps. Clarifying the bill often resolves the issue without damaging trust.

What should a firm do if a client refuses to pay?

Firms should address non payment by recognising early warning signs and opening honest communication about any dispute. Before escalating, they can offer flexible payment plans, revisit engagement terms and provide one click digital payment options that remove friction and make it easier for clients to settle what they owe.

The post Building a Collections System That Gets Law Firms Paid On Time first appeared on Human And Legal.

Remote Online Notarization (RON)

Several platforms now support online notarization from anywhere in the world. Here is a simple step by step guide using Notary Helper, one of the common platforms. The same process generally applies elsewhere.

Phase 1: Prepare the Document

Fill out the document you want to notarize with your name, signature, and any other required details. You can use web tools like DigiSigner.com or SimplePDF.com, or download a Fill and Sign app from your phone’s app store. If you prefer the manual route, print the document, fill it out by hand, and scan it back as a PDF.

Phase 2: Submit Your Document

Visit notaryhelper.com and click the Notarize Now button. You will be redirected to an online form asking for:

• The document to be notarized, in PDF format
• Your legal name and other personal info
• A government issued ID number or an uploaded copy of the ID
• Your country and state, to assign a notary authorized in your jurisdiction.

The same form has a section to process payment, which typically costs between $10 and $20 USD.

Phase 3: Notary Review and Delivery

The notary will check that the name and details you submitted match your identification, then apply the official notarial seal, stamp, and signature. That completes the notarization. Your notarized document is emailed to you within a day. You can request revisions before confirming final delivery.

In Person Notarization

If you prefer to meet a notary face-to-face, schedule an appointment at a law firm near you. Bring your printed document and a valid ID. The notary will review and certify the document during your visit. Costs for in person notarization generally range from $5 to $50 USD, depending on location and the professional you choose.

Final Thoughts

Notarization adds an important layer of protection to your documents. It confirms they are authentic and makes sure they are legally recognized. Whether you pick the convenience of online notarization or the traditional in person route, the process helps safeguard your interests. Choose the option that best fits your needs, timeline, and budget.

The post Getting a Document Notarized: Process & Requirements first appeared on Human And Legal.

The surge in technology spending comes as firms rush to deploy generative AI capabilities while managing record demand growth that pushed billable hours up 2.5% for the year, peaking at 4.4% growth in July. The report cautions that powerful forces within the legal industry are creating fundamental tensions between transformative technology investments and outdated billing structures.

“The tech revolution this time around isn’t the gentle cycle that law firms experienced when online research replaced sprawling legal libraries or when email supplanted fax machines,” the report notes. “Such changes streamlined workflows but left the fundamental practice of law untouched. Now, the use of advanced AI driven technology like generative AI represents something different: A technology that can draft briefs, analyze contracts, and synthesize case law in ways that can actually alter how legal work gets done. For an industry that’s operated essentially the same way since Langdell introduced the case method in the 1870s, this is uncharted territory.”

The technology spending increase represents a seven percentage point jump above core inflation, making it the most significant investment acceleration since at least the global financial crisis of 2007, the report suggests. Combined with talent costs rising 8.2%, firms are making unprecedented bets that AI enhanced capabilities will justify premium pricing and drive competitive advantage.

The strategy appears to be paying off for firms with intentional AI deployment plans. The report notes that law firms with a formal AI strategy are 3.9 times more likely to experience critical benefits compared to those without significant plans for AI adoption.

The Billing Model Crisis

Despite these substantial technology investments, the report identifies a fundamental disconnect. Roughly 90% of legal dollars still flow through standard hourly rate arrangements, according to data drawn from Thomson Reuters Legal Tracker. This creates what the report describes as “an almost absurd tension” where firms deploy technology that can accomplish work in minutes that once took hours, then try to bill for it by the hour.

“The math doesn’t work unless firms can negotiate rate increases steep enough to offset the efficiency gains,” the report states. “However, clients aren’t eager to see all their productivity benefits flow straight to law firm profits. Nor are they prepared for the sticker shock of a $2,000 hourly bill from an associate, even if what they’ve accomplished in that time may have taken 10 hours to complete previously.”

Both law firms and their clients are locked in a standoff over pricing innovation. Corporate legal departments want their outside firms to propose billing solutions that incorporate AI’s efficiencies, while firms complain that procurement teams still evaluate everything by converting it back to hourly rates.

“Why spend months developing a sophisticated value based pricing model when the procurement team will just divide the total by estimated hours and compare it to last year’s rates?” the report asks.

Compounding the problem, most clients do not even know whether or how their outside firms are using generative AI. That disconnect suggests neither side is having the honest conversations necessary to break the impasse.

The Value Squeeze

The technology spending surge is taking place against a backdrop of intensifying client pressure. The report documents that corporate legal departments have led law firms in generative AI adoption ever since its introduction in 2022, giving in house teams firsthand experience with AI driven efficiency gains.

When general counsel see their own departments using AI to handle routine work at a fraction of traditional costs, they increasingly question why outside firms charging premium hourly rates are not delivering similar efficiencies.

This dynamic is creating what Thomson Reuters Market Insights research calls a “client value squeeze.” Nearly 90% of general counsel report that resource limitations are preventing them from delivering the level of strategic impact their organizations expect, forcing intense scrutiny over external counsel spending.

The pressure is reflected in declining net spend anticipation among corporate buyers, which has dropped to levels not seen since the pandemic struck in 2020. While 41% of buyers at companies with more than $1 billion in annual revenue planned to increase legal spending in Q3 2025, 22% planned to decrease it, resulting in a net anticipation of just 19%, down from 23% the previous quarter.

The Mobile Demand Phenomenon

One consequence of these technology and pricing dynamics is accelerating “mobile demand,” or the movement of legal work from the most expensive Am Law 100 firms to less costly alternatives. Midsized firms captured nearly 5% demand growth in the latter half of 2025, while the Am Law 100 struggled to crack 2%, creating the largest gap between segments since the global financial crisis.

“With the average Am Law 100 lawyer’s standard rates cracking the $1,000 barrier in 2025 while everyone else averaged around $600, the math became irrefutable,” the report says. General counsel needed to do far more legal work with the same budgets, and shifting matters to firms charging 40% less provided necessary breathing room.

This trend carries implications for technology strategy. The report notes that firms outside the Am Law 100 grew their fees worked at a pace equal to or faster than larger competitors despite significant rate disadvantages, suggesting traditional hierarchies may be fundamentally shifting. Technology investments that enable smaller firms to deliver sophisticated work previously reserved for elite practices could accelerate this redistribution.

Technology as a Talent Multiplier

Rather than using AI to reduce headcount as other industries have done, law firms are taking the opposite approach. The report finds that if AI augmentation makes lawyers more efficient and valuable, firms believe this only increases the worth of their workforce. Lawyer full time equivalent growth remained strong at 2.9% in 2025, marking the third consecutive year of historically robust hiring.

“Whereas other industries may be touting AI induced layoffs to promote efficiency, the legal industry has chosen the opposite course,” the report notes, adding that since January 2023, the average midsized and Am Law second hundred firm has grown headcount by more than 8%.

This strategy is particularly notable for associates, whose realization rates average just 85.6% and whose work is already being written off at significant rates. “This creates a buffer in which AI can absorb the inefficient portions without touching collected revenue,” the report explains. “Firms can automate the work that wasn’t getting paid for while keeping associates busy on higher value tasks.”

Warning Signs Ahead

Although the average firm saw 13% profit growth in 2025, the report identifies multiple warning signs for 2026. Forecasts from Thomson Reuters Financial Insights point toward steep demand declines, with the middle of 2026 potentially slipping into contraction. The forecast shows quarterly year over year demand growth dropping from 2.4% in Q4 2025 to potentially negative 0.7% by Q3 2026.

Historical patterns also raise concerns. The report notes that the legal industry has a “peculiar historical habit of surging just before it stumbles,” with similar demand explosions preceding both the 2008 financial crisis and the 2022 inflation crunch. In both cases, firms that mistook temporary peaks for permanent shifts found themselves with bloated cost structures when conditions reversed.

“Law firms have seen this movie before, and they should remember how it ends,” the report warns. The 2008 crisis did not just crater demand. It fundamentally rewired the power dynamic between firms and clients, with corporate legal departments absorbing Big Law talent and transforming into sophisticated operations that scrutinized every billing line item.

The Technology Investment Imperative

The report argues that the current boom is precisely when firms should be making strategic technology investments rather than waiting for the next crisis. Those investments must go beyond simply acquiring AI tools to fundamentally rethinking operating models.

“The question isn’t whether traditional operating models can survive but whether law firms are committed to truly transform,” said Raghu Ramanathan, president of Legal Professionals at Thomson Reuters, in a statement issued alongside the report.

The report identifies three critical transformational shifts required: modernizing pricing models that no longer match how legal work is done, strengthening client trust in an environment where legal buyers are increasingly selective, and deploying technology in ways that deliver measurable value rather than marketing gloss.

ALSP Integration and Service Innovation

Forward thinking firms are beginning to assemble more creative solutions by packaging various pricing structures, automated services and partnerships with alternative legal service providers into comprehensive offerings. ALSP usage has risen steadily over the past decade, and leading firms are incorporating these providers as force multipliers, the report says.

North American firms lag behind international competitors in this regard. Just 27% of lawyers from North American firms reported that their firm has a non traditional legal services division or partners with independent ALSPs, compared to 76% of lawyers across the UK, Europe and Australia.

The Value Communication Gap

One of the most striking findings of the report is a gap between firm confidence in their technology investments and their ability to articulate value to clients. Rather than citing AI efficiency as justification for rate increases, which averaged 7.3% growth in 2025, the fastest pace since at least the global financial crisis, firm leaders express concern about needing to prove they are still worth current rates in an AI world.

“Their focus is defensive, not offensive, making them appear paralyzed by fears of value erosion rather than confident explanations of value enhancement,” the report says.

Client value extends well beyond faster turnarounds or more work per hour. Legal departments need outside firms that alleviate current constraints, whether through practical tools clients can reuse, seamless team integration or clear links between legal advice and business objectives.

“For AI efficiency to justify premium pricing, firms must first understand what value means to each specific client and then demonstrate how the firm’s AI deployment serves those particular needs,” the report asserts.

Living on a Volcano

While previous demand surges were tied to economic bubbles, today’s growth is driven by instability itself. Trade wars, regulatory chaos and geopolitical tensions could sustain legal demand even through economic downturns.

“Viewed through this lens, the groundswell firms are riding suggests that the ground beneath them is becoming fundamentally unstable, less a mountain than a volcano: a risky evolution but still capable of sustaining them through a long winter,” the report says. “Yet living on a volcano carries its own perils, and firms may ultimately miss the relative predictability of the occasional tremor.”

The firms that successfully navigate this environment will be those that use the current boom to fundamentally reimagine their operating models, not just to throw money at technology and talent, but to align their business structures with the future their clients are already demanding.

“The law firms that will define the next era of legal services will be determined not by how much they invest in technology and talent, but by how boldly they reimagine their entire operating model,” Ramanathan said. “The winners won’t necessarily be determined by size or legacy, but they’ll be the firms that act decisively now to align with the future their clients are already demanding.”

The post Law Firms Accelerate Technology Spending as AI Reshapes Legal Practice first appeared on Human And Legal.

Legal practitioners are tasked with staying current on evolving industry trends such as neurotechnology. Its intersection with developments like artificial intelligence and automation could precipitate even more transformative shifts for attorneys. Readers can consult the Legal Trends Report to gain further insight into the current state of the legal industry.

Defining Neurotechnology

Neurotechnology serves as an umbrella term for any technology that accomplishes one or both of the following:

1. Monitors or assesses activity within the brain or nervous system.
2. Directly influences activity within the brain or nervous system.

Contemporary applications of neurotechnology for measuring brain activity are numerous. Examples include electroencephalograms (EEGs), which use electrodes placed on the scalp to measure the brain’s electrical activity, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs), which track changes in cerebral blood flow.

Furthermore, neurotechnology possesses the capability to modulate neural activity. Deep brain stimulation, for instance, is employed to reduce tremors associated with Parkinson’s Disease. Spinal cord stimulation is utilized in the management of chronic pain. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) involves placing an electromagnetic coil against the scalp to treat symptoms of depression and enhance mood.

The most advanced neurotechnologies are still under development. This category includes brain computer interfaces (BCIs), such as those being designed by Neuralink. Neuralink aims to create a neural implant enabling users to communicate with and potentially control external computers. Other entities are also actively designing BCIs, with long range objectives of leveraging these devices for cognitive enhancement or specialized vocational training.

Impact on the Legal Field

Neurotechnology is a developing field presenting both prospective benefits and potential concerns for the legal industry. It is poised to influence the methods by which lawyers practice law and will also carry broader legal ramifications for society.

Lawyers, who often face a demanding and stressful occupation, could benefit from neurotechnology’s therapeutic applications. In a profession marked by elevated rates of depression, the deployment of technologies like TMS could have a considerable positive impact and potentially save lives. Neurotechnology may also enable many attorneys to continue practicing despite conditions that were previously debilitating, such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s Disease.

However, the prospect of neurotechnology offering cognitive enhancement to boost legal professionals’ efficiency and effectiveness raises difficult questions. While many attorneys would welcome such enhancement, it could generate pressure on all practitioners to adopt these technologies, regardless of individual preference. Absent clear guidelines or regulation in this area, neurotechnology could inadvertently escalate the professional demands placed upon lawyers.

Neurotechnology could introduce other professional pressures for attorneys. The technology might become capable of measuring an attorney’s degree of focus on a task. A recent report for the Law Society of England and Wales introduced the concept of lawyers transitioning from hourly billing to charging for “billable units of attention.”

Societal Legal Implications of Neurotechnology

Beyond the legal profession itself, neurotechnology presents profound legal implications for society.

Criminal Law, Law Enforcement, and Legal Settings

In specific circumstances, neurotechnology can already access a person’s mental activity to the extent that their thoughts and impulses may be discernable. This technology might be used to determine a criminal defendant’s competence to stand trial. One American company has even marketed a headset it claims will improve criminal interrogations by monitoring a suspect’s brainwave activity during examination.

The capacity to ascertain whether an individual is being deceptive is clearly valuable in legal contexts such as trials or depositions. Yet, questions persist regarding the reliability of this evidence and how its use will align with a defendant’s right against self-incrimination. These legal conflicts are likely to define jurisprudence in the coming decades.

Consumer Law

Advertising and marketing constitute a significant area of potential commercial application for neurotechnology. The use of an individual’s internet searches for these purposes is already standard practice. The wealth of personal data obtainable from brain activity holds the potential for even greater commercial utility.

For example, consider a brain computer interface in the form of a neural implant or headset used for gaming. The associated software could gather the gamer’s neural data for targeted advertising, perhaps identifying the optimal moment to prompt an in app purchase. Furthermore, companies could potentially sell this neural data to one another, mirroring current practices with other forms of consumer information.

It remains uncertain whether existing consumer law offers sufficient protection against these strategies. Nevertheless, certain states are enacting legislation to expand privacy protections to neural data. Future legal disputes, including potential class action lawsuits, are foreseeable in this domain.

Employment Law

Employers may begin to view neurotechnology as a tool for improving productivity and supervising employee performance. However, employers gaining insight into workers’ emotional and cognitive states through technology would likely constitute a severe invasion of privacy. If these neurological insights are then utilized to inform decisions concerning workplace discipline, promotion, demotion, or other significant employment actions, it will open up a complex array of potential employment litigation scenarios.

Privacy Law

All these scenarios have enormous consequences for an individual’s right to privacy. Even if neurotechnology proves effective for interrogations, should its use be permitted? Is there a need for regulations, or even outright prohibitions, on the use of this technology for workplace monitoring and advertising? Furthermore, regarding the neural data collected with this technology, the fundamental question of who controls that data must be addressed.

Ethical Considerations and Privacy

Numerous ethical considerations surround neurotechnology. Potential invasions of privacy represent one concern. Another involves the potential ability to influence an individual’s brain function and possibly impede their freedom of thought, decision making, and action.

Concerning privacy, Nita Farahany, a leading neurotechnology expert, has voiced concerns. Farahany observes that the presumption in American law is that mental privacy is protected. Yet, she notes that few laws specifically safeguard neural data. This disparity between legal assumptions and reality will require resolution in the coming years.

Ethical implications also arise with the prospective use of brain coprocessors—BCIs integrated with artificial intelligence. These devices could potentially be compromised via hacking, leading to cognitive impairment or even the manipulation of a person into performing certain actions. Such coprocessors would likely necessitate stringent regulation and robust security measures.

The Mandate for Privacy and Security Frameworks

Given that privacy and security are paramount concerns regarding neurotechnology, legal and industry frameworks must be established to address them. Lawyers should assume a leadership role in developing these structures.

Current Regulation of Neurodata Privacy

Chile stands as the only country that has enacted laws specifically addressing privacy rights for neural data, known as neurorights. In 2021, the Chilean government adopted a constitutional amendment protecting brain activity and data. In 2023, the Chilean Supreme Court affirmed neurorights by ordering a neurotech company to delete brain data collected from a former senator.

Some United States jurisdictions have implemented their own neurorights policies. In April 2024, Colorado enacted legislation protecting the privacy of neural data. Later that year, California passed an amendment to the state’s consumer privacy law, extending protection to neural data.

The Continuing Need for Regulation and Best Practices

Regulation of neurodata will undoubtedly expand to additional US states and other countries over time. This necessitates that neurotech companies and their legal counsel prioritize industry standards and best practices for neurotechnology. These standards could serve as foundational frameworks for future laws.

Some proponents advocate for industry self regulation to be favored over governmental legislation. The underlying concern is that excessively stringent regulatory oversight could hinder innovation in the core technology.

Conclusion

While neurotechnology is already generating many prospective opportunities for the legal profession, the most substantial breakthroughs are yet to come. These advances will likely present certain challenges for the legal landscape as society adapts to the new technology. Neurotechnology will bring both potential rewards and perils for the legal profession.

Neurotechnology is but one of many current trends attorneys must monitor closely. Read the latest Legal Trends Report from Human&Legal to uncover other significant developments impacting the legal industry.

The post Neurotechnology’s Legal Frontiers: Implications for Practice and Society first appeared on Human And Legal.

Effective utilization of Google Scholar for legal research hinges upon an understanding of its inherent strengths and limitations. This article explores the functionality of the Google Scholar case law database and offers guidance on its optimal use.

Understanding the Google Scholar Platform

Google Scholar debuted in 2004 as a freely accessible search engine dedicated to scholarly materials across various subjects. In 2009, court opinions were integrated into its database, becoming searchable via the dedicated “case law” option. This addition provided the first substantial free alternative to commercial legal research tools such as Westlaw and LexisNexis.

What Constitutes Case Law on Google Scholar?

When a user accesses Google Scholar, the platform presents a choice between searching “articles” or “case law.” The articles option provides access to academic journals and scholarly writing, while the case law option allows the user to search for judicial opinions from numerous federal and state courts.

After selecting the case law option, search terms can be entered just as in a typical Google search. The platform permits the user to confine the search to federal courts or the state courts within a specific jurisdiction. Alternatively, a user may navigate to the “Select courts” screen to choose a custom selection of state and federal courts across different levels. This feature allows for dramatically narrowing a court search; for instance, targeting opinions from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, the Nevada Supreme Court, or the Fifth District Bankruptcy Courts.

Searching for Case Law on Google Scholar

One distinct advantage of the Google Scholar case law database is its simplicity. The user interface is straightforward, enabling an attorney or law student to quickly grasp the capabilities of this tool with some practice.

Executing a Case Law Search

After navigating to the Google Scholar website in a web browser, a user will find a selection interface right below the search bar, allowing a click on either “Articles” or “Case Law.”

Upon clicking “Case Law,” the user is presented with options to select federal courts or the courts of the local jurisdiction, such as “California courts.” A third option, “Select courts,” directs the user to a display of federal and state courts at various levels, enabling a more customized search. Terms can be entered into the search bar at any point after the initial court selection, and the court parameters can also be modified even after the initial search results are displayed.

Search by Citation

To search by a specific case citation, the user simply enters the citation into the Google Scholar search bar. The case will appear in the search results. Clicking on the result allows the user to read the full text of the judicial opinion.

It is important to recognize that Google Scholar lacks some viewing features available in commercially accessible legal research tools, such as Westlaw or LexisNexis. For example, the user will not see any case synopses or headnotes.

Search by Keyword

Case law can also be searched by keyword. The most direct method is using the actual case name; for example, searching for Roe v. Wade will locate the opinion without requiring the citation. Keywords can also be utilized to search the full text of judicial opinions for specific subjects, such as “qualified immunity” or “hostile work environment.” Utilizing the “Select courts” option to narrow the search results is particularly helpful when conducting keyword-based subject research.

Utilizing the “How Cited” Feature

On the case viewing page, the platform displays a link labeled “How cited.” Clicking this link reveals all other judicial opinions within the Google Scholar database that have cited the currently displayed case.

A limitation of this feature is that it does not immediately indicate how each citing case treated the displayed case. The user cannot tell whether the opinion cited the case approvingly or disapprovingly, or if it overruled the opinion in whole or in part. The citing opinion must be read to ascertain this information. Otherwise, a case citator—a research tool used to determine if a case remains valid law, such as the commercially available Shepard’s Citations and KeyCite—is needed.

Content and Efficacy of Google Scholar Opinions

The Google Scholar search engine incorporates an extensive range of judicial opinions from state and federal courts. Federal opinions include every U.S. Supreme Court opinion since the court’s founding in 1791, as well as opinions from all other federal courts (district appellate tax bankruptcy) since 1923. At the state level, Google Scholar hosts every state supreme court and appellate case since 1950.

Is Google Scholar Adequate for Legal Research?

Google Scholar is an effective tool for legal research provided its limitations are acknowledged. It successfully locates a wide variety of judicial opinions from many courts using either the citation or party names. However, researchers must review other opinions citing a case to confirm that it remains good law. Furthermore, searching by legal topic often yields mixed results.

The primary advantage of Google Scholar for legal research is that it offers an extensive database of federal and state judicial opinions at no cost. The most common criticism is its lack of a comprehensive feature to fully verify the continuing validity of a case, often referred to as “Shepardizing.” Checking the status of a case will require extra effort from the researcher.

Do Attorneys Use Google Scholar?

Attorneys do utilize Google Scholar for research, but they must do so with awareness of its limitations. For simply looking up a specific case, the Google Scholar case law database is an excellent resource. For more complex or advanced searches, legal professionals may consider exploring paid options for legal search tools.

Additional Tips for Effective Use

While Google Scholar is a powerful research tool, a few additional tips can enhance its effectiveness.

Carefully Review Case Citations

As mentioned, the “How cited” tab displays cases that have cited the case in question but does not specify how they treated it. The user will not know the reason for the citation without reading the citing case.

Accordingly, the researcher must carefully review the citing cases to ensure the original case is still good law and can be accurately referenced. Otherwise, using a case citator is necessary to confirm the case’s validity.

Understand Search Limitations

Users should be aware of key limitations in Google Scholar searches. While using keywords to search for legal topics can be helpful, many users report mixed results. For instance, the seminal case on a particular subject may appear far down the list of results. Google Scholar also appears to have difficulty accurately searching for code citations.

Citing a Case Found in Google Scholar

To cite a case discovered in Google Scholar, adherence to the rules of the Blue Book or the Association of Legal Writing Directors (ALWD) is permissible. Google Scholar citations are generally reliable enough that the normal legal citation may be used without needing to specify the platform where the case was found.

Human&Legal understands the importance of accessible legal research. Google Scholar case law provides a comprehensive database and a potentially powerful research tool. For legal professionals and law students willing and able to conduct the thorough work required to ensure a case is good law, Google Scholar serves as an excellent resource.

The post Utilizing Google Scholar for Legal Research first appeared on Human And Legal.

Is a Lawyer the Same as an Attorney?

Theoretically, a technical difference exists, though it is frequently disregarded in common usage.

• An attorney is shorthand for “attorney at law.” This designation traditionally indicates an individual who has not only completed law school but is also licensed or admitted to a bar association, granting the authority to represent clients in a court of law.
• A lawyer is a broader term, generally referring to anyone who has earned a law degree and is qualified to offer legal advice. A lawyer may or may not be licensed to appear in court.

In essence, all attorneys are lawyers, but the reverse is not necessarily true.

The historical roots of these terms shed light on this distinction. The term attorney holds greater seniority, tracing its origins to the Anglo Norman words atorné or aturné. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) records its first English use in 1330 CE, where it was associated with a person formally appointed to represent another in a court of law or a trained member of the legal profession admitted to practice in the common law courts.

“Attourneis in cuntre, þeih geten siluer for noht.”¹

The OED lists the earliest use of the word lawyer in 1377. This term held a wider definition, encompassing every branch of the profession beyond those appearing in court.

“Ȝe legistres and lawyeres Holdeth this for treuthe.”²

The Use of “Attorney” in the United States

Within the United States, the terms “attorney” and “lawyer” are often used synonymously in daily conversation. The difference is subtle and holds less significance outside of highly formal contexts. This fluid usage is analogous to the distinction between “solicitors” and “barristers” in other countries.

Even prominent legal institutions acknowledge this overlap. The American Bar Association states on its website: “A lawyer (also called attorney, counsel, or counselor) is a licensed professional who advises and represents others in legal matters.”

Nonetheless, some jurisdictions maintain stricter definitions for legal roles and titles. Legal professionals uncertain about local requirements should consult their local bar association. Those planning to practice across multiple areas should review resources such as the Human&Legal guide on bar reciprocity by state.

Global Variations in Legal Titles

The US perspective, where “attorney” is a common title for a practicing legal professional, contrasts with usage in many other parts of the world.

• Canada: The term “attorney” is not widely adopted. Legal professionals are typically referred to as lawyers, except when holding a specific government post, such as “Attorney General.”
• United Kingdom: “Attorney” is generally not used. Legal practitioners are classified as either barristers or solicitors, based on their training and specific duties. Barristers specialize in representing clients in court, while solicitors focus on providing legal advice and managing case preparation.
• Australia: Similar to the United Kingdom, legal professionals are generally known as either barristers or solicitors, not attorneys.

In summary, while “attorney” is standard in the US, it is not a title commonly applied to legal practitioners in other English speaking countries.

The Pathway to Becoming an Attorney in the US

The educational journey to becoming either a lawyer or an attorney in the United States is largely the same, typically requiring approximately seven years of training and education. The common steps for someone aspiring to practice law include:

1. Earning an Undergraduate Degree: A bachelor’s degree is a prerequisite for law school admission. Although a specific major is not required, fields that hone analytical, writing, and reading skills—such as history, political science, and English—are often recommended.
2. Graduating from Law School: Following the undergraduate degree, the next step is the three year law school program. The application process is rigorous, often requiring the Law School Admission Test (LSAT), which assesses critical thinking and logical reasoning skills essential for legal practice.
3. Passing the Bar Exam: Completion of law school is followed by the bar examination, which is administered by the respective state. Passing this exam is necessary to gain a license to practice law. Candidates must carefully study the specific requirements of their jurisdiction.
4. Licensure and Commencement of Practice: Upon passing the bar exam and fulfilling any additional state specific requirements, the individual is officially licensed to practice law. This marks the beginning of a legal career, whether with a government agency, a law firm, or in an independent practice.

This path is demanding, yet for those committed to the law, the professional fulfillment can be substantial. For detailed guidance, consult the Human&Legal How to Become a Lawyer hub.

Conclusion

In the United States, “attorney” and “lawyer” are often used interchangeably, although the formal distinction rests upon the practitioner’s license to represent clients in court. The precise meaning can vary significantly based on the jurisdiction of practice. When seeking clarity regarding proper legal terminology, consulting the local bar association is always the recommended course of action.

Footnotes ¹ The simonie: a parallel text edition • (ed. Dan Embree and Elizabeth Urquhart) · Middle English Texts edition, 1991 (1 vol.). (Middle English Texts 24). ² William Langland • The vision of William concerning Piers Plowman. • A. text 1362; B. text 1377; C. text 1393; (together with) Richard the redeles 1399 (ed. Skeat; E.E.T.S. 1867–85; 1886).

The post Distinguishing Legal Terminology: Attorney Versus Lawyer first appeared on Human And Legal.

This article highlights some of the top law firms in America, examining the factors contributing to their success and offering insights relevant to advancement in the legal industry.

Leading Law Firms by Recommendation

In the legal profession, the influence of word of mouth remains paramount. The 2022 Legal Trends Report indicated that client reviews are the single most influential factor in client hiring decisions. Recognizing this, TIME and Statista recently identified the 150 most recommended law firms in the country based on feedback gathered from both lawyers and clients.

The following represent notable mentions from that list:

• Sidley Austin LLP
  • Revenue: $3.1 billion
  • Lawyers: 2,300
  • This elite global law firm, with over 150 years of experience, represents clients in more than 70 countries. The firm handles complex transactional, investigation, regulatory, and litigation matters.
• Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
  • Revenue: $3 billion
  • Lawyers: 1,700
  • Founded in 1948, this firm now operates 21 offices, with approximately 1,700 attorneys and over 50 distinct practice areas. It serves clients in every major international financial center, providing specialized legal advice across numerous industries.
• Debevoise & Plimpton
  • Revenue: $1.3 billion
  • Lawyers: 855
  • Debevoise & Plimpton LLP is a premier law firm recognized for its market leading practices, global perspective, and strong New York origins.
• Arnold & Porter
  • Revenue: $1.1 billion
  • Lawyers: 1,000+
  • With over 1,000 lawyers practicing in 15 offices worldwide, Arnold & Porter offers extensive industry experience and an integrated approach encompassing more than 40 practice areas.
• Holland & Knight
  • Revenue: $1.8 billion
  • Lawyers: 2,200+
  • Holland & Knight is a global law firm with more than 2,200 lawyers and other professionals in 34 offices globally, providing representation in litigation, business, real estate, and governmental law.

Top Law Firms by Revenue and Size

While the designation of “best” is often subjective, assessing a firm’s revenue and size can provide a quantifiable metric of success. Since these figures are generally public for Big Law firms, it is a frequently used method for evaluating the top organizations in the United States.

Below are some of the top Big Law firms in America:

• Kirkland & Ellis
  • Revenue: $7.2 billion
  • Lawyers: 3,500
  • Founded in Chicago in 1909, this international firm now has 11 US offices, focusing primarily on commercial litigation and corporate interests.
• Latham & Watkins
  • Revenue: $5.5 billion
  • Lawyers: 3,500
  • This global firm operates offices in 14 countries, serves a high profile clientele, and employs attorneys across a diverse range of practice areas.
• Norton Rose Fulbright
  • Revenue: $2.3 billion
  • Lawyers: 3,000+
  • Formed by a 2013 merger between Norton Rose and Fulbright Jaworski, this international firm with 50 locations worldwide primarily represents major corporations, financial institutions, and startups.
• Baker McKenzie
  • Revenue: $3.3 billion
  • Lawyers: 4,700
  • Headquartered in Chicago, this general practice firm operates 77 offices across 46 countries.
• White & Case
  • Revenue: $3.1 billion
  • Lawyers: 2,600+
  • White & Case, headquartered in New York, operates 44 offices across 30 countries. This international firm provides a general practice with notable specialization in areas such as debt finance, dispute resolution, and corporate law.

Recognizing Law Firms by Client Impact

A law firm’s excellence is perhaps best measured by the quality of service it delivers to its clients. While many rankings emphasize size and revenue, impact on clients and community involvement truly distinguishes exceptional firms. The prestigious Reisman Awards annually recognize firms that have made significant contributions to their communities.

Recent Reisman Award recipients included:

• Rasa Legal – Legal Innovation: Based in Salt Lake City, Utah, Rasa Legal utilizes software to simplify and make affordable the process of clearing a criminal record, addressing the massive impact a record can have on a person’s economic mobility.
• The Dross Law Firm, PLLC – Best New Law Firm: Arique Dross III founded this firm and has positively impacted clients’ lives. Within its first year, the firm generated almost half a million dollars in revenue, doubled its size, and acquired over 150 clients.
• Amara Legal Center – Community Champion: This nonprofit legal service organization is dedicated solely to increasing access to justice for sex trafficking survivors and sex workers through free, trauma informed legal services in the DC metropolitan area.
• Tenet Law – Excellence in Client Service: Specializing in fraud and financial crime advice, Tenet Law operates remotely without financial or billable hour targets, allowing its team to focus on delivering better, cost effective solutions to clients.
• The Childress Firm PLLC – Diversity and Inclusion: Jessica Childress launched the firm with a mission to provide high quality, affordable legal representation to communities of color. She also developed the diversity equity and inclusion tool Intro[re]spection and wrote the children’s book series Juris Prudence.
• King Law Offices – Best Growth Story: Founded in 2002 by Brian King, the firm has since become one of the largest and fastest growing in the Carolinas, nearly quadrupling annual revenue over the past five years.
• PATH Legal – Legal Impact Award: Established in November 2022, PATH Legal works at no cost to mitigate the injustice experienced by incarcerated individuals and those who have suffered from a miscarriage of justice in Nova Scotia.

Additional Insights on Top Legal Organizations

What are the ‘big three’ law firms? The ‘big three’ law firms, recognized for their revenue, prestige, size, and global influence, typically include Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, and Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. These firms consistently rank at the top across various metrics, showcasing their significant influence and success in the legal industry.

What is the highest paid law firm in the US? Kirkland & Ellis LLP is the highest paid law firm in the USA. It generated an impressive $7.21 billion in revenue in 2023. This substantial earning is driven by its strong performance in corporate law and its handling of high profile cases, positioning it at the forefront of the legal industry.

Factors for Evaluating Law Firm Excellence

Assessing law firms can be complex, as the definition of “the best” varies. Individuals seeking to advance their legal careers may value the resources and opportunities at large law firms, while others might prioritize the meaningful community impact often found in small and midsize firms.

Generally, three key factors influence the assessment of America’s top law firms. It is important to remember that while many rankings favor Big Law firms, the best organizations are not always the most widely known; a firm’s excellence can be relative to its own goals and clientele.

Reputation

A law firm’s reputation directly reflects the quality of its services. When seeking to elevate a firm, attention should be paid to organizations with a proven record of success, positive client reviews, and recognition within the legal community. Awards such as the Reisman Awards can further validate a firm’s standing. Understanding the factors consistently highlighted by testimonials or awards helps define what contributes to a stellar reputation.

Revenue

Revenue is a crucial factor, reflecting a firm’s financial health and its capacity to attract top talent and maintain a robust client base. While Big Law firms dominate rankings due to the ready availability of financial data, all firms should prioritize building a strong revenue stream relative to their size and legal offerings. Enhancing profitability can be achieved by leveraging legal technology to automate administrative tasks, allowing a greater focus on strategic, billable work.

Resources

The services and resources available to both clients and employees are common metrics. Larger firms often offer a wider range of specialized services and possess more resources to handle complex cases. However, research, such as the 2024 Legal Trends for Solo and Small Law Firms report, suggests smaller firms can be more agile in adopting competitive legal technologies. For instance, solo lawyers were reported to be more likely to be using artificial intelligence in their practices, with 21% reporting usage compared to 19% of overall firms.

Benefits of Assessing Leading Law Firms

Studying industry leaders offers several benefits for legal professionals and firms:

• Enhances Legal Talent: Top law firms serve as a benchmark for the skills and expertise needed to excel, helping other firms assess and enhance their talent pools.
• Informs Career Paths: Aspiring legal professionals gain valuable insights from studying these firms, aiding in more informed career decisions regarding professional growth and attractive workplace cultures.
• Offers a Model for Growth: Leading firms act as blueprints for success, providing lessons on effective management and the importance of delivering a client centered experience.
• Inspires Strategies and Successes: The most respected firms often handle groundbreaking cases and employ innovative legal strategies. Their approaches can provide practical inspiration for positive outcomes in one’s own legal pursuits.

Conclusion

The top law firms in America distinguish themselves through an unwavering dedication to client satisfaction, innovative growth strategies, and meaningful community contributions. They establish the benchmark for success, serving as inspiration for firms seeking expansion and for aspiring legal professionals.

To discover more about impactful firms, interested parties should consider attending industry events, such as the upcoming conference where the 2024 Reisman Awards will be announced. This offers a unique opportunity to gain new insights and forge connections to help a firm reach new levels of success.

The post Benchmarks of Excellence: Identifying America’s Leading Law Firms first appeared on Human And Legal.

In this matter, Judge Scott concluded that the attorney, Raja Rajan, essentially “outsourced his job to an algorithm.” Consequently, the court imposed a $2,500 sanction and mandated that the attorney complete a Continuing Legal Education program focusing on artificial intelligence and legal ethics. The basis for the discipline was a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule requires lawyers to certify the factual and legal veracity of their submissions to the court.

The judge emphasized that the duty under Rule 11 is squarely on the attorney, not the technology. The court wrote, “[U]nlike the cases Mr. Rajan cited, Rule 11 is not artificial; it imposes a real duty on lawyers — not on algorithms — to ‘Stop, Think, Investigate and Research’ before filing papers either to initiate a suit or to conduct the litigation,’” citing a 1987 case from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A Pattern of Unverified Submissions

The narrative surrounding this case is becoming increasingly familiar across the legal landscape. After Mr. Rajan filed two motions, the court “was perplexed” to discover that two of the cited cases could not be located using standard legal research tools. Additionally, the lawyer cited two other cases for legal propositions entirely irrelevant to the matters they decided, and two further cases that represented outdated or abrogated law.

When Judge Scott issued an order for Mr. Rajan to show cause why he should not be disciplined, the attorney offered an explanation, stating he “never in [his] wildest dreams” would have predicted that the AI tool would generate fictitious cases. Mr. Rajan informed the court that while he had previously utilized Casetext for reviewing briefs, he used a generative AI tool for the first time in this instance. He asserted that he did not expect the tool to fabricate artificial cases to support his desired outcomes.

The court rejected this explanation, stating, “Far from reasonably inquiring into the legal contentions contained in his briefs, Mr. Rajan blindly trusted an algorithm he had never used before.” Judge Scott noted that the attorney had conducted no research into the AI tool’s efficacy for legal work, its reliability, or, crucially, into the legal validity of the cases it cited.

The court acknowledged the continuous evolution of technology and legal research tools. However, the judge cautioned that “if approached without prudential scrutiny, use of artificial intelligence can turn into outright negligence.” The core of the attorney’s negligence in this case, the judge stressed, was the failure to verify the cited case law.

The ruling made clear that while Rule 11 does not specifically forbid using artificial intelligence for research assistance, the rule absolutely establishes that the signing attorney acts as the ultimate verifier for all legal and factual assertions within their motions. For these reasons, the court ordered Mr. Rajan to pay a $2,500 penalty and complete a one-hour CLE-accredited seminar or educational program related to both artificial intelligence and legal ethics.

The post Lawyer Sanctioned for Filing Hallucinated Cases Based on Artificial Intelligence Output first appeared on Human And Legal.

Surging Adoption and Future Expectations

According to the report, 26% of legal organizations are now actively utilizing generative AI, a notable rise from 14% reported in 2024. While only 15% of law firm respondents currently consider generative AI central to their workflow, a substantial 78% anticipate it will become central within the next five years. This highlights a strong expectation for future widespread integration.

These figures align with or exceed recent findings from other industry reports:

• The American Bar Association’s Legal Technology Survey Report found that approximately 21% of law firms were using legal specific generative AI tools.
• The 2025 Legal Industry Report from AffiniPay noted that individual use of generative AI at law firms reached 31%, although organizational adoption was slightly lower at 21%.
• The 2025 State of Law Report from Smokeball observed that AI adoption among small and solo firms increased from 27% in 2023 to 53% in 2024.

The Thomson Reuters report suggests that the change has been more evolutionary than revolutionary for professional services. “GenAI has not broken the ways professionals work or significantly disrupted the interactions between firms and their clients. Instead, for professional services, it has been more of an evolution,” the document states.

Shift in Sentiment and Primary Use Cases

Law firm sentiment toward generative AI has shifted significantly over the past year. In 2024, hesitancy was the dominant reaction at 35%. However, in 2025, excitement (27%) and hopefulness (28%) have become the prevailing attitudes, with hesitancy dropping to 24%.

The top use cases identified by legal professionals remain consistent: document review (77%), legal research (74%), and document summarization (74%). Nearly 70% of law firm respondents who utilize generative AI report doing so at least weekly.

Raghu Ramanathan, president of legal professionals at Thomson Reuters, commented on the rapid change: “It is incredible how quickly legal professionals have moved from skepticism to strategic adoption of gen AI, and we are seeing it firsthand through use of our AI solutions. The legal sector is embracing gen AI not as a threat but as an ally, and this isn’t about replacing legal expertise—it’s about enhancing it.”

Gaps in Strategic Implementation

Despite the increased adoption, the report identified several crucial gaps in how legal organizations are implementing generative AI:

• Only 41% of law firms have established specific or broad technology policies governing generative AI use.
• Just 40% provide any form of generative AI training to their staff.
• Merely 20% of organizations are actively measuring the return on investment for generative AI tools.
• A significant 71% of corporate legal clients are unaware whether their outside law firms are utilizing generative AI.

The report also raises concerns about preparing the future workforce. “If 95% of professionals believe GenAI will be central to their organizations’ workflow within the next five years, presumably, new hires today should be present and engaged when GenAI comes to the fore,” the report notes. However, it indicates that a large proportion of organizations are not targeting applicants with these essential skills.

To fully realize the potential of generative AI, legal organizations must transition beyond initial adoption toward strategic implementation. This includes establishing governance frameworks, measuring outcomes, and initiating explicit discussions with clients about the use of generative AI.

The Thomson Reuters Institute survey data was collected in January and February 2025 and included 1,702 respondents across multiple sectors, with legal professionals making up 41% of the total.

The post Legal Professionals Anticipate Generative AI Integration Will Become Central to Workflow Within Five Years first appeared on Human And Legal.