Every law firm is a jungle. The brochures say otherwise; they speak of collegiality, shared purpose, institutional values polished to a high gloss. But anyone who has sat through a partners’ meeting when compensation is on the agenda, or watched the slow-motion maneuvering that follows a rainmaker’s retirement announcement, knows the truth. Law firms are ecosystems governed by the same Darwinian imperatives that govern any habitat where resources are scarce and survival is never guaranteed.
The Fauna
At the top sits the Rainmaker, the Lion. The Lion does not draft briefs or parse regulations; the Lion hunts. The Lion brings in the kill: the eight-figure engagement, the bet-the-company litigation, the relationship with the CEO forged over decades of trust. When the Lion feeds, the firm feeds. Everything else, the staffing, the billing, the frantic late-night research, flows downstream from the moment the Lion drags a client through the door.
Circling the Lion, always circling, are the Hyenas, partners who lack the instinct for the hunt but possess an exquisite talent for internal politics. The Hyenas arrive after the kill, jostling for position at the carcass. Their art is the origination credit dispute: the quiet conversation with the managing partner about who “really” deserves credit for the relationship, the strategic cc on an email chain that implies involvement where there was none. Every rainmaker has a story, told with a bitterness that years do not soften, about the time a Hyena maneuvered to claim a client the Lion had cultivated for a decade. The origination committee, which exists in theory to adjudicate impartially, is in practice often populated by Hyenas who ascended to governance precisely because they are skilled at the inside game.
Then there are the Vultures, patient, unhurried, circling at altitude with an eye fixed on the aging Lion. They do not compete with the Rainmaker in her prime; they would lose. Instead, they cultivate the client’s deputy, offer to “help with the transition,” attend the same charity boards. When the Lion retires, or is pushed toward retirement in one of those genteel firm conversations that are anything but gentle, the Vultures descend. The redistribution of a retiring partner’s book of business is among the ugliest episodes in firm life, a process that strips away every pretense of institutional loyalty and reveals the raw calculus of self-interest. I have seen partnerships that endured for hundred years dissolve into acrimony over the question of who inherits a single client relationship.
Standing apart from this predatory hierarchy is the Subject-Matter Expert, the creature who knows the jungle itself. The Expert may not hunt, but the Expert knows where the water runs, which paths are safe, where the terrain shifts. The tax partner who has internalized forty years of code revisions, the patent litigator who understands the physics as deeply as the law; these individuals are revered in a way the Hyena never is and the Vulture never will be. In the old order, the Expert could say to the Lion: “You may bring in the work, but without me, you cannot do the work.” This mutual dependency kept the ecosystem stable.
The Review by Ajay Raju: Bikini: What we don’t cover (
And then there is the rest of the jungle: the vast herds of associates, service partners, and counsel, the wildebeest at the watering hole. They graze on billable work, keep their heads down, and scan the horizon for predators. An associate knows that her fate depends on forces beyond her control: whether the practice group she joined is growing or contracting, whether the partner she works for has enough origination to protect the team. Service partners live in a particular purgatory: too valuable to fire, too vulnerable to relax, dependent on the continued goodwill of rainmakers who may or may not view them as essential. They make up the majority of any big law partnership, but wake up every morning uncomfortable about their destiny, because their destiny is not their own.
This is the ecosystem that artificial intelligence is about to reshape. Not gently. Not incrementally. With the force of a climate event that alters the carrying capacity of the habitat itself.
We have seen this before, in a humbler arena. For generations, the London cabbie and the New York hack were experts of a particular kind, urbanists of the street, carrying in their heads a living map of every shortcut, every traffic pattern, every trick for shaving five minutes off a crosstown fare. London’s Knowledge, the grueling examination that required aspiring cabbies to memorize 25,000 streets and 20,000 landmarks, was the taxi industry’s equivalent of a bar exam, a credentialing ritual built on the scarcity of navigational expertise. Then GPS arrived, and Waze after it, and suddenly any driver with a smartphone could navigate as well as a thirty-year veteran. The expertise that had taken years to acquire was commoditized overnight. But the disruption did not stop there. Uber and Lyft didn’t just democratize the knowledge of “how” to drive; they automated the acquisition of “whom” to drive for. The platform replaced the rainmaker. No more circling blocks hoping for a hail, no more cultivating doormen at hotels for a steady referral. The algorithm matched rider to driver with a ruthless efficiency that no individual relationship could rival. And now Waymo completes the arc: the platform no longer needs the driver at all. Expertise commoditized, relationships automated, and finally the human operator rendered optional, all within a single generation.
The parallel to law is not perfect, but it is closer than the profession would like to admit. AI is the GPS, democratizing the navigational expertise that once separated the seasoned practitioner from the novice. The emerging legal platforms are the Uber, aggregating client demand and matching it to providers with an efficiency that diminishes the value of individual rainmaking. And somewhere on the horizon, agentic AI is the Waymo, the possibility that the platform will not merely connect clients to lawyers but will perform the work itself, with human oversight reduced to a supervisory function. The cab driver who knew every street lost his advantage to a satellite. The lawyer who knew every precedent is losing hers to a large language model. The question is how far down the same road the legal profession will travel, and how the jungle’s inhabitants will adapt as it does.
The Changing Weather
The data, as of early 2026, describes an industry simultaneously gorging on record profits and sensing that the ground is shifting.
The Thomson Reuters 2026 Report on the State of the U.S. Legal Market reveals that law firm technology spending surged 9.7 percent in 2025, with knowledge management budgets climbing 10.5 percent, the most rapid real growth in these categories the industry has likely ever experienced. The average Am Law 100 lawyer’s standard partner rate cracked $1,000 per hour. Firms collectively celebrated 13 percent profit growth, the strongest demand growth in more than a decade. Yet beneath these triumphant numbers, the report warns of “tectonic forces” creating fundamental tensions between transformative technology and the billing structures that have sustained BigLaw prosperity for generations.
Harvard Law School’s Center on the Legal Profession documented productivity gains that would have seemed hallucinatory five years ago: a complaint response system at one AmLaw 100 firm reduced associate drafting time from sixteen hours to three or four minutes, a gain exceeding one hundred times. The Thomson Reuters 2026 AI in Professional Services Report, released just days ago, found that 55 percent of firms now use general-purpose AI tools, 35 percent use specialized legal AI, and 30 percent of professionals use AI multiple times daily. Legal research leads adoption at 80 percent, followed by document review at 74 percent and summarization at 73 percent.
Meanwhile, the clients are arming themselves. The ACC/Everlaw GenAI Survey found that corporate legal AI adoption more than doubled in a single year, from 23 to 52 percent, and that 64 percent of in-house teams now expect to depend “less” on outside counsel. McKinsey estimates 44 percent of business tasks, including legal, are technically automatable. Gartner predicts 40 percent of enterprise applications will feature task-specific AI agents by 2026, up from less than 5 percent recently.
These statistics are clear warning signs about the coming change in the weather and how this change will uproot the balance of power among the animals in the Fauna.
The Expert Dethroned
AI does not kill the Lion in 2026. Not yet. AI’s first kill is the mystique of the Expert.
For decades, the Subject-Matter Expert derived power from the scarcity of what they knew. Their knowledge was institutional infrastructure, and the firm’s dependence on that infrastructure translated directly into compensation, governance authority, and the quiet deference that is the truest measure of power in any organization.
AI does not make this knowledge irrelevant. But it makes it “accessible.” When a second-year associate armed with a legal AI platform can produce a memorandum on a novel regulatory question that is 85 percent as good as what the specialist partner would have produced, and can do so in twenty minutes rather than two days, the scarcity premium collapses. The Expert’s knowledge doesn’t disappear; it gets democratized. And democratized knowledge, in any political system, is devalued knowledge.
The Harvard study captured the emerging inversion: AI may cause “the 80/20 inversion,” where 80 percent of a lawyer’s time was once spent collecting information and 20 percent on strategic analysis, and now those proportions reverse. The Expert’s political power was anchored in the 80 percent, in being the person who “had” the information. When AI absorbs that function, the Expert is left with judgment, strategy, contextual wisdom. Still valuable, but advisory rather than indispensable. It is the difference between being the only doctor in town and being one specialist among several, each of whose opinions can now be cross-checked by a machine.
The political implications within the partnership will be immediate. In compensation negotiations, the Expert’s argument, “I command premium rates because of what I know,” weakens when the client’s own in-house team can approximate that knowledge with AI. In governance, the Expert’s seat on the executive committee begins to look like an artifact of a prior era. In lateral recruitment, firms will discount partners whose value proposition rests primarily on technical depth that AI can replicate, while paying up for those with durable client relationships.
The Thomson Reuters 2026 report found that professionals who view AI as a “major threat” to jobs rose from 15 to 24 percent in a single year, while those who see it as threatening the unauthorized practice of law jumped from 36 to 50 percent. These anxieties are not distributed evenly across the jungle. The Lion is not afraid. The Hyenas are adapting, as Hyenas always do. It is the Expert who feels the tremor most acutely.
The Lion Unchained
If AI diminishes the Expert, it supercharges the Rainmaker. No algorithm can replicate the trust built over a dinner, the instinct that reads a boardroom, the judgment that discerns when a client’s spoken concern masks an unspoken fear. Relationships remain stubbornly analog in a world going digital.
In the old ecosystem, the Lion needed the Expert. The mutual dependency was real: the Lion brought in the work, but the Expert was essential to performing it at the level the client expected. AI breaks this dependency. The Lion can now pair with AI-augmented teams, younger lawyers, leaner staffing models, to deliver comparable quality without relying on any single individual’s expertise. The Lion becomes, for the first time, truly self-sufficient. The Expert becomes, for the first time, truly optional.
The internal politics shift accordingly. The old bargain, “I bring it in, you do the work, we split the proceeds,” tilts decisively toward the partner who controls the client relationship. The 2026 State of the Legal Market report notes that firms are struggling to justify rate increases averaging 7.3 percent, the fastest pace since the global financial crisis. Their focus, the report observes, is “defensive, not offensive,” reflecting fear of value erosion. The partners best positioned to defend value are not those who possess expertise the AI is replicating but those who possess relationships the AI cannot touch.
The Hyenas, characteristically, will adapt fastest. They will rebrand as “AI integration specialists” or “client innovation partners,” claiming origination credit not just for client introductions but for “identifying AI-enabled efficiencies” on existing matters. The origination disputes of 2030 will be about who proposed the AI-augmented workflow that saved the client 40 percent on due diligence. The Hyenas will be no less predatory, merely more technologically fluent in their predation.
The Vultures, too, will find their patience rewarded faster. As AI accelerates the timeline on which a senior partner’s expertise becomes replicable, what once took a generation to transfer now takes a software deployment. The retiring partner’s argument that “the client needs a long transition because my knowledge is irreplaceable” weakens when the firm’s AI systems have already captured and systematized much of what the departing partner knew. The inheritance, once contested over years, will be settled in quarters.
The Watering Hole Disrupted
For the wildebeest, AI produces a characteristically mixed result.
On the labor side, AI is absorbing precisely the work that associates were hired to perform: the document reviews, the initial research, the routine drafting that constituted the bottom of the billable-hour pyramid. Yet firms have not reduced hiring; the National Association for Law Placement reports that new graduate hires actually “increased” in 2024, with firms hiring 6,092 associates, up from 5,236 the prior year. The Georgetown report explains the paradox: associate realization rates average just 85.6 percent, meaning substantial work was already being written off. AI absorbs the unpaid inefficiency without touching collected revenue. But this equilibrium is inherently unstable. The buffer of unrealized work will shrink as AI improves, and the economic justification for current headcounts will weaken.
More politically significant is the emergence of the “ten-times lawyer,” the associate who masters AI so thoroughly that their output rivals lawyers with decades more experience. A DeepL survey found that 96 percent of legal professionals already use AI tools, with nearly half calling them essential. Ropes & Gray’s decision to grant first-year associates 400 hours of billable credit for AI training acknowledges that the traditional developmental pathway is being disrupted.
The consequence is that the associate class, historically docile within firm governance, will become restive. A third-year associate producing partner-level work through AI will not accept a decade-long apprenticeship before being considered for partnership. Firms that resist compressing the timeline will lose their most technologically adept talent to competitors, to in-house positions, or to AI-native platforms that reward capability over tenure.
Service partners face perhaps the most precarious reckoning. Their value proposition has always been execution: “I may not bring in the work, but I do the work superbly.” AI undermines this directly. Non-equity partners already constitute 50.9 percent of all Am Law 100 partners. This tier, squeezed between AI-empowered associates below and relationship-rich equity partners above, may prove the political casualty of the transition.
Platform Becomes the Predator
Even the Lion should not sleep easily. There is a further disruption on the horizon, one the current data only hints at but the logic of the technology makes inevitable: the moment when the firm’s AI platform, rather than any individual partner, becomes the primary driver of client acquisition and retention.
Medicine has already illuminated this path. A generation ago, patients chose their doctor first and accepted whatever hospital that doctor practiced in. The surgeon’s personal reputation was the gravity that pulled patients into an institution’s orbit. But as medical technology grew more complex and more consequential, namely robotic surgical systems, proton beam therapy, genomic diagnostics, AI-assisted imaging, the calculus inverted. Today, patients increasingly choose the institution first: Penn Medicine, Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, Cleveland Clinic. They choose the hospital that has the da Vinci surgical robot, the comprehensive cancer center designation, the integrated electronic health record system that coordinates care across fifty specialists. The individual physician still matters, of course, but the physician’s value is now understood as a function of the institutional platform on which they operate. A brilliant surgeon working with outdated equipment in an uncoordinated system is, in the patient’s estimation, less valuable than a very good surgeon embedded in a world-class technological infrastructure. The platform elevates the practitioner; the practitioner, alone, no longer elevates the platform.
Law is approaching the same inflection. The question is not whether it will arrive but how quickly.
The trajectory is visible. In-house teams are using AI to benchmark and audit outside counsel. General counsel armed with AI-driven invoice tools flag time entries inconsistent with automated workflows. Clients are beginning to select firms not on which partner they trust but on which firm’s technology delivers the most efficient, transparent, and predictable outcomes. The 2026 State of the Legal Market report notes that mid-sized firms outside the Am Law 100 grew fees at a pace equal to or faster than their larger competitors, not because they had better rainmakers, but because AI narrowed the capability gap.
As AI moves from generative drafting into agentic workflows, systems that can plan, execute, and iterate on complex legal tasks with minimal human oversight (16 percent of firms already use agentic AI, with another 19 percent planning to adopt it), the technology begins to function as an institutional rainmaker. The client chooses the “platform,” not the partner. The firm with the best AI infrastructure, the most seamless integration with the client’s own systems, wins the work, regardless of which individual lawyer staffs it.
The Review by Ajay Raju: Outrage. Hashtags. Outrage. Repeat (
This is the endgame the largest firms are already, perhaps unconsciously, building toward. Technology spending surging nearly 10 percent in a single year is not an investment in better tools for existing lawyers. It is an investment in a future where the firm’s competitive advantage “is” its technology, and the lawyers are operators of a machine rather than the machine itself.
When that moment arrives, the jungle will undergo its final transformation. The Lion will discover that even relationships can be institutionalized when client loyalty migrates to the platform. The Expert will become a quality-control function. The Hyenas will find fewer carcasses to fight over, because a kill made by an algorithm does not negotiate origination splits. And the wildebeest at the watering hole will discover that the climate has changed so fundamentally that the old anxieties are beside the point: the question is no longer whether you survive in the jungle, but whether the jungle itself survives.
Last Word
Bank on it. The billable hour model will not survive the AI generation. AI creates a structural incompatibility between productivity gains and hourly billing. But the billable hour was never merely an accounting convention; it was the constitutional framework of law firm governance, the metric by which power was measured, distributed, and contested. When AI eventually kills the billable hour, it will dismantle the political constitution of the modern law firm.
I admit that political constitutions will not be dismantled in a day. Hourly billing still accounts for roughly 80 percent of fee arrangements. The Harvard study found that none of the AmLaw 100 firms interviewed anticipated reducing attorney headcount. Thirty-five percent of firms have no plans to adopt agentic AI at all. Institutional inertia is enormous, and the creatures of the jungle are skilled at absorbing change without acknowledging it.
This may be the most dangerous posture of all. AI does not eliminate the need for human judgment, wisdom, or relationship. It eliminates the ability to monopolize access to information as a source of political authority. In this sense, AI does to the internal politics of the law firm what the printing press did to the medieval Church: it democratizes knowledge, and in doing so, demands a new basis for authority.
Thomson Reuters CEO Steve Hasker characterized 2026 as the emergence of “a new divide among organisations: those that adopt an AI strategy and those that do not.” But the more consequential divide may be internal: between those within the firm who understand that expertise commoditized is power redistributed, and those who cling to hierarchies the technology has already begun to dissolve.
The jungle is changing. The question is whether adaptation will be led by strategic intentionality, the kind of counsel, ironically, that law firms are paid to give their clients, or by the blind, ugly, familiar Darwinism that has always governed the firm from within.
For a profession built on precedent, there is, in this instance, none to follow.