No one can reliably predict the future – not even Harvey, Claude, Paxton, or any of those other fast-talking, self-assured helperbots. Except if the prediction concerns the state of the legal profession in 2026. On that topic, everyone agrees. Artificial intelligence will radically reshape the practice of law in 2026.
Most attorneys now believe that artificial intelligence will be driving changes in the ways that they deliver legal services (admittedly, in 2026, an easy prediction to make). But artificial intelligence is also driving demand for legal services. Because these new tech tools are disrupting settled business and social arrangements across most of the economy, legal experts are predicting a significant uptick in litigation and regulatory compliance work this year and beyond.
Lawyers are focused less on whether they will be replaced by generative AI tools and how to capitalize on AI tools that will help them better lawyers.
And there’s more good news. The current thinking is that there will be no large-scale AI job displacement in the legal industry anytime soon. The artificial intelligence technologies we’ve seen so far won’t replace lawyers, or eliminate the need for negotiation, or take depositions, or try cases. Not in 2026 and perhaps not ever.
This blog post collects some of those predictions. First, let’s look at the interest artificial intelligence has drawn from state legislators in the United States. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures’ artificial intelligence legislation database, as of Jan. 27, 2026, there have been 741 AI-related bills introduced in the current legislative sessions across 30 states. This is an unprecedented level of legislative attention for a still-emerging technology.
A quick review of the proposals introduced so far reveals several dominant themes that lawyers will be monitoring closely, particularly those who advise clients on regulatory compliance, insurance, employment law, election integrity, and technology development.
Leading topics of legislative interest include:
- Harms related to deepfakes. Numerous bills address the harms that AI-generated “deepfake” communications can have on the political process. Legislators in Alaska, California, and Wisconsin have all introduced bills requiring disclosure when campaigns use deepfake technology in political communications.
- Disruption in the workplace. Automated decision systems in hiring and workplace management are not always transparent and are frequently accused of making decisions on the basis of unlawful factors. At a minimum, they create change and instability in the workplace. Many bills address perceived harms from AI-driven forces in the workplace. The presence of AI-driven denial systems in health insurance products is also attracting legislative attention.
- Algorithmic pricing and housing costs. Multiple state bill introductions target algorithmic pricing systems that may facilitate conspiracies to restrain trade or discriminatory practices. One measure, California Senate Bill 259, would prohibit price discrimination through online devices based on specific input data about consumers.
- New data centers and energy infrastructure. The proliferation of energy-intensive AI data centers has prompted legislative scrutiny of land use, power consumption, and cost allocation.
- Impacts on consumer protection and data privacy. Several states will weigh proposals to strengthen consumer protections and privacy protections against AI-driven data practices. In fact, California has already passed two such measures. The first is Senate Bill 243 (effective Jan. 1, 2026), which requires “companion chatbot” platforms to issue clear notifications when users interact with artificially generated entities rather than humans. Assembly Bill 316 (effective Jan. 1, 2026) prohibits AI software developers from asserting defenses claiming that the AI, not the developer, is legally responsible for AI-caused harms.
Little wonder that dozens of the nation’s top law firms have created artificial intelligence practice groups in recent months. From government relations to regulatory compliance to litigation, the demand for good legal advice on AI-related matters is substantial.
Technological Disruption Drives Demand
Thomson Reuters’ 2026 Report on the State of the US Legal Market highlights unprecedented demand growth for legal services. The average U.S. law firm experienced 1.9% demand growth in 2025, with third-quarter demand reaching 3.9% year-over-year growth. These increases appear not to stem from economic prosperity but from uncertainty and disruption: international trade, regulatory change, and technological advances that require constant legal navigation.
Latham & Watkins’ Michele Johnson, global chair of the firm’s 1,100-plus attorney litigation department, recently told AmLaw Litigation Daily that she expects 2026 to bring “more” in litigation: more complex disputes, more technology-driven, more cross-border, and more strategically embedded in business operations.
Jim Rouhandeh, head of litigation at Davis Polk & Wardwell, echoed the sentiment. “Everything’s getting bigger. Everything’s getting riskier,” he said, “and that leads to more and more conflicts and ones that it’s harder and harder to resolve.” Rouhandeh said he sees growing client appetite to try cases, especially in high-stakes matters.
Boris Feldman, global co-head of tech, media, and telecoms at Freshfields, and Mary Eaton, co-head of securities and shareholder litigation at the firm, both warned that AI increases securities class action filings. According to Eaton, small plaintiff-side firms now use scraping models that pull relevant data points like 52-week highs and Form 4 filings.
“I think we’re going to see a ton more suits in the coming years, irrespective of market conditions,” Feldman predicted. Feldman demonstrated AI’s power by loading a company’s SEC filings, earnings call transcripts, investor presentations, and news articles into an AI tool, asking it to create a comprehensive risk profile. “It was certainly better than anything I would have come up with myself,” he said. The task took 15 minutes versus a week for associates or paralegals.
Eaton agreed AI tools raise practice levels at smaller plaintiff firms, though stratification between top players and others will persist. “There really isn’t any substitute for top-notch lawyering,” she said.
DLA Piper’s disputes practice chair Loren Brown noted that plaintiffs’ attorneys are using AI to find claimants and to surface patterns that indicate valid claims. DLA Piper trains its lawyers and staff to become experts in AI tools, he said, yet the firm also emphasizes human skills like boardroom presentation and courtroom advocacy.
Rouhandeh expressed a similar attitude. Cases making it to trial still require telling stories persuasively to judges and jurors. “It all is the human touch. It’s the credibility of the witnesses,” he said. “AI is not going to try your case.”
The American Bar Association Task Force on Law and Artificial Intelligence released its Year 2 Report on the Impact of AI on the Practice of Law in December 2025, examining AI’s impact on law practice. The report’s authors detected a recent shift in professional attitudes from whether to use AI to how to use AI responsibly and effectively. “Lawyers are focused less on whether they will be replaced by generative AI tools and now on how to capitalize on AI tools that will help them be better lawyers,” they wrote.
Practical Implications
Legal professionals preparing for 2026 and beyond might reasonably consider these parting thoughts:
- The need to develop technology competence has never been more critical, both for litigators and for judges. Embrace technology strategically in a way that creates efficiencies and improves client outcomes. Polish the human skills that AI doesn’t yet possess.
- Clients increasingly expect lawyers to use artificial intelligence in pretrial discovery processes. Lawyers who master AI-assisted discovery may gain advantages in motion practice. According to Thomson Reuters, corporate counsel are seeking greater value and lower prices, potentially through AI-enabled efficiency.
- Lawyers should anticipate client demand for legal services related to emerging artificial intelligence technologies.
- When bringing in outside firms that process client confidential information, law firms should partner responsibly with vendors that have a proven track record on data security and technological innovation.
As the American Bar Association’s immediate past president, William R. Bay, observed in his introduction to the organization’s report, artificial intelligence presents lawyers with new challenges but also with unique opportunities to improve client service, streamline operations, and promote access to justice. “The future of our profession will be shaped by how we meet this moment,” he wrote. “Together, we will work to promote a future where AI serves both our clients and the public good.”
