The new client question
General counsel are no longer asking only whether outside counsel uses AI. They are asking how it is tracked, governed and explained. Above the Law, citing the 2026 KPMG Global General Counsel Outlook, reported that 82% of GCs agree or strongly agree that they expect firms to track and share their use of AI in client matters.
That turns AI from an internal productivity initiative into a client-facing governance commitment. The firm's answer now belongs in the pitch deck, the engagement letter and the matter-close conversation.
What transparency means in practice
Transparency does not require exposing every prompt. It does require a defensible description of permitted AI uses, prohibited uses, review standards, data-handling rules, and when client consent is required.
The strongest firms will build matter-level AI logs: which categories of tools were used, for which task type, by whom, under what verification protocol. That gives the client enough confidence without turning collaboration into surveillance.
Why this changes procurement
For GCs, AI transparency is a proxy for operational maturity. A firm that cannot explain AI use may also struggle with privacy, privilege, cybersecurity and fee predictability. A firm that can explain it clearly signals process discipline.
This will reshape RFPs. Expect more questions about vendor lists, model governance, data residency, prompt retention, human review, hallucination safeguards and whether AI-generated work affects billing.
The bottom line
The legal market is moving from AI adoption to AI accountability. Outside counsel that can show the work behind the work will be easier for GCs to trust, approve and defend internally.