When the Phone Stops Ringing

What Big Law Figured Out – Part One of Four

The most dangerous threat to your firm will not announce itself. Clients will not explain why they move on. The work just stops.

Jae Um, legal analyst and founder of Lumio, explained this on the AI and the Future of Law podcast, hosted by Jen Leonard of Creative Lawyers and Bridget McCormack of the American Arbitration Association. In some practices, the phone simply stops ringing. You are left guessing. A client found a cheaper way and the work got done elsewhere. No announcement, no discussion.

One in-house counsel completed a $10,000 matter with a $20/month tool. The former law firm never knew. You cannot measure what you never received.

That is the nature of this threat. Missed matters go untracked, making the competitive loss invisible.

Most firms focus on visible work at risk: commoditized, high-volume matters with price pressure. But a bigger risk is work leaving the firm unnoticed. When clients handle legal matters elsewhere, no one notices until the pattern has continued for months. The key question is not where price pressure appears, but where work disappears before you see it.

The most exposed position, in my experience, is serving clients you barely know. If you do not truly understand these clients’ businesses, you will not spot a problem before it becomes a decision. When a $20/month tool is viable, the client weighs it against your cost. If your value is not clear, they choose differently. They will not say why. They will simply stop calling.

A general counsel in Um’s analysis said it plainly: “If a firm isn’t cannibalizing its own inefficient billable hours, we will find a firm that will.”

Take that as a forecast. Clients already have alternatives. They are signalling what happens if you do not act first.

Um described how this pressure arrives to a room full of managing partners in London. It never comes as one event. New business gets harder to win and existing matters shrink. Realization rates slip. And it will be hard to say why.

If you are asking the right questions, you are already ahead. A Cleary senior partner advised: envision the business that would put yours out of business. This explains the threat faster than any market analysis.

For each major practice area, ask: how hard is it for clients to solve this another way? The competitor may not be another firm, but a $20/month subscription. If the honest answer is “not very hard,” that area is more exposed than you may be treating it.

The most at-risk work is process-driven: matters where clients with the right tool and some internal capacity can reach an acceptable result without you. Think work that follows a predictable process and produces a predictable result. The work least at risk requires judgment the client cannot buy off the shelf. Matters where the stakes are material and getting it wrong costs far more than the tool costs to try. Most firms have both. The question is whether you know which is which.

If your firm is smaller, you have a real advantage here. Close client relationships are an early-warning system, but only if you use them that way. Ask clients directly what they are handling without you. Learn what tools or services they are already using. Knowing this before you need it gives you time to respond.

This is not a cause for paralysis. The same disruption pulling work away from firms that are not paying attention is creating real opportunity for those that are. If you understand what you deliver and can make that case against the alternatives, you will be in a stronger position at the end of this period than you are now.

Don’t wait for silence to signal risk; contact now and ask clients specifically why their needs are changing. Taking initiative to reach out demonstrates attentiveness, not desperation. Approach these conversations as opportunities to partner with your clients to solve their challenges, reinforcing your commitment to their success. Be proactive: schedule conversations, request candid feedback, and use what you learn to adapt immediately. The managing partners who do this consistently and directly are the ones who stay ahead of shifting client expectations.

This article is the first in my “What Big Law Figured Out” series, inspired by the AI and the Future of Law podcast featuring Jae Um. In Part two, learn how to design AI investment around a distinct competitive strategy, not by following others. Part three will walk you through essential foundations to put in place before any investment discussion. Act on these insights today to outpace competitors tomorrow.

What Changes When Intelligence Becomes Cheap?

Mark Alcazar opened our recent Law Firm Profitability group session, “AI Agents for Law Firms,” with this question (See session recording here.) The evidence shows that AI is able to handle large parts of what law firms do. A significant portion of the cognitive scaffolding for legal work, including routine drafting and document formatting, is already handled at near-zero cost. Your judgment and your client relationships are not going anywhere, but the production layer around them is another matter.

Most of the law firms I speak with are using AI for narrow, low-stakes tasks, if at all. The session I hosted with Mark Alcazar and John Fitzpatrick from Apex Velocity Catalysts was designed to change that. Everything they showed was live. Tools they are building and using in their own work today. What those demonstrations showed is worth your attention.

Building Without a Developer

The first thing they demonstrated was how fast something useful can be built without a software developer. Mark built a working new-matter intake form in roughly five minutes using Claude Cowork. He wrote a detailed prompt describing what the form should do, and Claude returned working HTML: a form that populates a table and exports to a spreadsheet. Not production-ready, but a great starting point. The distance between “we need a tool for this” and “here is a working prototype” is now measured in minutes, not months. Cost and technical complexity used to keep custom tools out of reach, but both have dropped considerably.

Improving the Output

The second thing they showed was how to improve the AI’s output. Most of you are already using Claude or ChatGPT for some part of your work, and the output quality varies based almost entirely on how the prompt is written. Two techniques made an immediate difference. The first is context: a bare prompt like “draft an engagement letter” returns something generic. Adding jurisdiction, matter type, client background, and the purpose of the letter produces something that resembles actual work your firm would do. The second is more interesting. Instruct the model to create a scoring rubric, score its own output against it, and iterate until it meets a defined threshold. In the demonstration, Claude scored its first draft at 86 out of 100 and kept improving. The mechanism works, and the results are noticeably better.

Agents vs. General AI

The third area was the distinction between general AI and purpose-built agents. General AI is versatile but unfocused. An agent is built for a single defined workflow, such as your NDA process or conflict check. Because the scope is narrower and the instructions are specific, agents are measurably more reliable for the workflows they support. John demonstrated a full NDA workflow: intake, drafting, multi-agent review, negotiation with version tracking, client approval, and e-signature integration. Early indicators from firms adopting this kind of focused approach suggest the gains come precisely from that focus. One workflow done reliably outperforms a broad tool used inconsistently.

Before You Deploy

Before any of this goes into practice, certain things need to be settled deliberately.

What can the AI do without human approval? That is a decision your firm has to make deliberately, not by default. Mark’s own agent is instructed never to send an email on his behalf, even though it is technically capable of doing so. He set that limit, the system did not.

How does AI-generated work get verified before it reaches a client? Whether that is a second agent reviewing against a rubric, or a structured checklist process, the principle is the same: one step produces, another step evaluates.

Where is your client data going? Consumer versions of Claude and ChatGPT carry different protections than enterprise accounts. If your firm is using consumer tools for client-related work, that needs to be resolved before any other adoption decision.

Where to Begin

On the question of where to begin: every firm has what Mark called “drag.” It is the repetitive, error-prone work that consumes time without generating strategic value. It is spread across every role and usually invisible because everyone is too busy doing it to examine it. The exercise is simple. Identify the drag and put a number on it: hourly rate multiplied by time spent each week. Prioritize based on what automation would recover.

Then pick one workflow and make it work before touching anything else. Forward-thinking firms are not trying to transform everything at once. They are proving value in one place and expanding from there.

Colin Cameron is President of Profits for Partners and founder of the Law Firm Profitability group on LinkedIn. The session was presented by Mark Alcazar and John Fitzpatrick of Apex Velocity Catalysts.

Partner Compensation: The Catalyst for Law Firm Innovation

Many firms get stuck at the same critical point with legal innovation. They’ve brought in AI and introduced value-based pricing. A firm strategic plan has been signed off on. Everything looks ready to go.

Then nothing clicks.

These firms struggle to identify the barriers preventing them from moving forward with their innovation efforts. They have AI that could make them efficient and effective. They have value-based pricing that could recognize their increased efficiency. They have strategies to implement everything and get it working in concert.

But there’s still a missing link: partner compensation.

The Four Drivers That Must Work Together

Real change requires four connected elements. Many firms focus on three and wonder why the fourth derails everything.

You need a strategic plan with clear firm goals that support legal innovation. Without direction, changes become random experiments rather than coordinated change.

You need a value-based pricing strategy that recovers efficiency gains. Fixed-fee billing and value-based arrangements reward results instead of time spent.

You need AI that improves effectiveness. The technology exists to streamline legal work dramatically.

And finally, you need a compensation system that incentivizes partners to achieve the tasks required to contribute to the firm’s innovation goals.

Why Compensation Is the Missing Link

You need to align your partner compensation system with your firm’s strategic innovation goals and modify compensation systems that primarily depend on billable hours.

Most firms are strongly opposed to changing their compensation system. However, it is often necessary to implement AI and value-based pricing. When compensation rewards billable hours above everything else, partners resist AI that reduces those hours. Their income depends on maximizing time billed, so they’ll protect that model regardless of firm strategy.

How Compensation Needs to Change for Innovation

Some ideas for linking compensation to innovation include focusing compensation more on revenues and nonbillable contributions instead of individual billable hours. Partners will be incentivized by proactive individual plans that help achieve strategic firm objectives, including AI implementation and value-based pricing. Management will oversee these plans and report on partner performance for comp purposes. Just a couple of the changes needed to foster innovation in law firms.

Most law firms focus on incentives for short-term profit, such as billable hours/production, and little on nonbillable innovations, like AI implementation and value-based pricing, which contribute to long-term profitability. This needs to change.

Clients are quickly catching on to the benefits of AI and will switch away from law firms that don’t adapt their processes, pricing and incentive systems to meet their needs. Therefore, partners currently married to time billing should be encouraged to transition to fixed or value-based pricing models where feasible.

The Urgency Is Real

You can’t escape changing your compensation system in this new environment. The legal market is shifting, whether you participate or not. AI will continue to advance, and client expectations will keep evolving toward value-based relationships.

The technology exists. The pricing models work. The only thing standing between most firms and successful innovation is their willingness to align compensation with their strategic goals.

Stop going in circles. Address compensation now, or risk losing clients and partners in an environment that demands innovation to survive.