We are increasingly having conversations with senior lawyers who raise AI as a priority when considering their next firm.
“I want to move to a firm that is investing in AI.”
It is an understandable position. AI is changing how legal work is produced, how services can be delivered and potentially how firms structure and grow their practices.
But as a recruitment criterion, “investment in AI” needs some unpacking.
What are you actually looking for that investment to achieve?
Recent developments across the Australian legal market demonstrate why the distinction matters.
In August 2026, Sparke Helmore and technology company Adaca announced Trivity, a separate technology company bringing together legal and software expertise for government and highly regulated organisations.
Earlier this year, Thomson Geer became Thomsons, while TG Legal + Technology became Faculti Lawyers, with a distinct focus on technology-enabled portfolio legal services. Faculti has also developed its own AI platform, Fai.
MinterEllison has taken another approach, appointing a Chief AI Officer in June 2026 alongside its use of external AI platforms, proprietary technology and firm-wide capability programs.
These are quite different examples of what investing in AI can look like.
For a Special Counsel or Partner considering a move, the more useful question may therefore be less about what a firms legal AI investment actually is, and more about what that investment will allow you to do?
1. Are you looking for better tools or a different way to practice?
The first distinction is a fundamental one.
Do you want technology that helps you perform your existing work more efficiently?
Or are you looking for a firm that is reconsidering how legal services themselves are delivered?
Those are different ambitions.
For some lawyers, the priority may be access to sophisticated tools for research, document review, drafting or knowledge management.
For others, it may be the opportunity to develop new workflows, rethink high-volume work, create technology-supported services or work with clients in a different way.
Before assessing firms, it is worth being clear about which matters more to you.
2. How embedded is AI in the practice you would actually join?
Firm-wide technology announcements can provide useful signals, but they do not necessarily tell you what day-to-day practice looks like within a particular team.
A senior lawyer assessing a move might want to understand:
- how lawyers in the relevant practice are currently using AI
- whether adoption extends to Partners and practice leaders
- what legal technology or innovation support is available
- whether lawyers are encouraged to develop their own use cases
- how much investment is being made in implementation, rather than simply access to tools.
The availability of technology and the maturity of its use are not the same thing.
That distinction becomes particularly important where AI capability is one of the reasons you are considering a change of platform.
3. Is the firm investing in its lawyers as well as its technology?
There is also a human capability question.
Giving lawyers access to AI does not automatically make a practice AI-enabled.
Lawyers still need to understand where the technology is useful, where it is not, how outputs should be verified and how professional obligations continue to apply.
This is becoming increasingly important as courts and professional bodies formalise expectations around responsible AI use. The Federal Court’s April 2026 practice note, for example, recognises the potential efficiency benefits of generative AI while emphasising professional responsibility, verification and particular caution around confidential and protected information.
For a lawyer considering a move, the question may therefore be:
Is this firm simply procuring technology, or is it developing the capability of its people to use it well?
Training, governance, internal expertise and leadership engagement can tell you a great deal about how seriously a firm is approaching the issue.
4. What could AI mean for the economics of your practice?
At Partner level, AI also becomes a commercial question.
If technology changes the time required to perform certain work, it may eventually influence how that work is scoped, staffed and priced.
That raises broader questions around practice economics.
- Could technology improve margins on particular work?
- Could it enable a Partner to offer a service differently?
- Will clients expect efficiencies to be reflected in pricing?
- Does the firm support experimentation with alternative delivery models?
- How does its remuneration structure treat investment in innovation, team development or new service offerings?
For an established Partner, these issues may be more consequential than the particular AI product the firm has chosen.
The relevant question becomes: does this platform support the way I expect my practice to evolve?
5. What does it mean for the team you want to build?
Senior lawyers should also consider AI through the lens of team development.
Legal practices have traditionally relied on junior lawyers undertaking research, document review, drafting and other work as part of both service delivery and professional development.
As technology becomes capable of assisting with more of that work, Partners will need to think carefully about how their teams learn, develop judgement and build the skills required at the next level.
That does not necessarily mean smaller teams. It may mean different teams, different delegation and different expectations of junior lawyers.
For a Partner considering a lateral move, useful questions might include:
- How is the firm thinking about future team structure?
- How are junior lawyers being trained in an AI-enabled environment?
- Will technology allow senior lawyers to delegate differently?
- What new skills will the next generation of senior lawyers need?
A firm’s approach to AI may ultimately tell you as much about its approach to people as it does about technology.
6. Will the investment help you create greater value for clients?
For many Partners, this may be the most important test.
Technology is strategically relevant when it helps solve a client problem.
That may involve speed, consistency, cost, better use of data, improved risk management or entirely new forms of service delivery.
Some Australian firms are already making this connection explicit.
Trivity, for example, has been created around technology solutions for government and regulated organisations. Faculti is positioning itself around technology-enabled portfolio legal services.
These are examples of technology investment moving beyond internal productivity and into the client proposition itself.
A Partner evaluating another firm might therefore ask:
How could this firm’s technology capability help me provide something better to my clients or grow the practice I am building?
That is a much more useful question than whether the firm simply has access to a particular AI platform.
7. How mature are the firm’s guardrails?
There can be a temptation to equate fewer restrictions with greater innovation.
In legal practice, that is not necessarily the case.
Confidentiality, privilege, verification, security and professional accountability remain fundamental. The Federal Court and Australian professional bodies have increasingly emphasised these issues in guidance on the use of generative AI.
A considered governance framework may therefore be a sign of maturity, not reluctance.
Senior lawyers may want to understand which tools are approved, how confidential information is protected, what verification is expected and where responsibility for AI governance sits within the firm.
The objective is not simply fast adoption. It is useful, responsible adoption that clients and practitioners can trust.
Turn “AI investment” into a meaningful recruitment criterion
When a senior lawyer tells us that AI is important in their next move, the most useful next step is to understand why.
Is the priority:
- greater efficiency
- better client delivery
- access to specialist technology expertise
- the ability to develop new services
- stronger training and capability
- a different approach to building and leveraging a team
- a platform that will support the future growth of the practice?
The answer will not be the same for every lawyers practice.
Nor will every firm need to approach AI in the same way.
As with any other consideration in a senior lateral move, the objective is not to identify the firm with the most visible technology story. It is to understand which platform has the capability, investment and direction that best aligns with the practice you want to build.
To discuss the market and your practice fit, feel free to reach out to Felicity McManus, Director, 0405 537 153.
More about McManus Partners
Selected Opportunities