Artificial intelligence in the legal profession is no longer a question of whether, but of how effectively it is deployed. As firms confront rising client expectations around speed, accuracy and value, AI is increasingly being viewed not as a technology upgrade, but as a fundamental business transformation reshaping how legal services are structured, priced and delivered.
“Artificial intelligence has ceased to be a question of if. It is now, unequivocally, a question of how, and how well,” said Kanika Chugh, Managing Partner, SKV Law Offices. She stressed that adoption must be deliberate and balanced. “Necessity is not the same as replacement. The lawyer’s role today, in my opinion, is to integrate AI where it adds value, exercise judgment where it doesn’t, and remain clear-eyed about the fact that the full measure of AI’s value in legal practice is still being written.”
According to Chugh, the disruption runs deeper than efficiency gains. “The business of law is changing. Not at the edges, but at its core. The way legal work is sourced, structured, priced, and delivered is being fundamentally reordered by artificial intelligence, and the firms that recognise this as a business transformation, not merely a technology upgrade, are the ones already repositioning themselves for what comes next.”
At SKV Law Offices, that repositioning is already underway. “The firm has integrated AI into its workflows, regularly tests emerging platforms, and ensures that its lawyers, at every level, have active access to these tools. Not as a periodic exercise, but as a continuous and evolving commitment to staying ahead of a market that will not wait,” Chugh said.
However, she underlined that access alone is insufficient. “But access alone does not change a business. Skilling does.” SKV, she noted, is focused on building genuine AI capability across its teams. “For both junior and senior lawyers, the foundational skill of this era is not familiarity with platforms. It is the ability to prompt with precision, and that precision can only come from deep subject matter knowledge.”
She also flagged the risks. “Which is why SKV places equal emphasis on educating its team on the pitfalls of AI, most critically the phenomenon of hallucination, where AI systems generate responses that are confident, fluent, and wrong. In a profession where accuracy is not a preference but a duty, understanding where AI can mislead is as important as understanding where it can assist. This is not optional education. It is a business imperative.”
The broader rethink of legal services has been shaped by global thought leaders such as Richard Susskind, whose work Chugh encountered at the IBA Academy of Leaders Law Firm Management Programme organised by the International Bar Association. Susskind has long argued that AI’s greatest impact will not lie in automating existing tasks, but in reimagining how legal outcomes are delivered—through dispute avoidance and access rather than exclusivity.
He has also warned against what he calls “not-us thinking,” the tendency of professionals to assume AI will transform every industry except their own, while pointing to the rise of the AI-empowered client as a major force reshaping legal demand.
That shift is already visible. As clients gain access to powerful AI tools once reserved for law firms, they are arriving better informed and more demanding. “But this does not diminish the need for lawyers. It redefines what they must offer,” Chugh said, adding that the future lies in pairing technological fluency with deep specialisation.
The economic implications for firms are significant. “AI is collapsing the traditional law firm pyramid by automating junior-heavy work like review, research, and drafting, which shifts firms from labour-driven to tech-enabled models. The real change is in value: clients are no longer paying for time, but for judgment, speed, and outcomes,” said Keyur Gandhi, Managing Partner, Gandhi Law Associates. He added that this is splitting the market between commoditised routine work and premium strategic advisory.
“Ultimately, firms that integrate AI become leaner and more scalable, while those clinging to legacy models face margin pressure and relevance risk,” Keyur added.
Others point to regulatory and ethical considerations. “AI is transforming the law firm model while adhering to ethical mandates under ABA Model Rule 1.1 (competence) and emerging regulations like EU AI Act, requiring lawyers to supervise tools transparently,” said Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris. He noted that automation via platforms such as Harvey AI and Lexis+ AI is significantly reducing hours spent on routine work, accelerating the shift toward fixed-fee and outcome-based billing.
Yet, challenges remain. “One of the biggest concerns is the reliability of AI-generated outputs—particularly the risk of fabricated or inaccurate citations. This necessitates rigorous human verification, often offsetting the time saved at the initial stage,” said Yatharth Rohila, Partner, Aeddhaas Legal LLP. “From a value perspective, AI is beginning to push law firms to rethink traditional billing models. As routine tasks become faster and more automated, the emphasis is gradually moving from time-based billing to value-driven advisory, judgment, and strategic insight.”
Summing up the structural shift, Ankit Sahni, Partner, Ajay Sahni & Associates, said, “This fundamentally changes what clients are paying for. The value proposition is shifting away from billable hours towards judgment, speed, and strategic insight.”
As AI continues to embed itself into legal workflows, the consensus across firms is clear: technology may commoditise routine work, but it is simultaneously elevating the premium on human judgment. Firms that recognise and adapt to this recalibration are likely to define the next phase of the legal profession.
