home  /  new revenue & service lines
department of new revenue & service lines

Everything else makes existing work cheaper. This is work that did not exist.

Most clients say their outside counsel has never raised AI with them. That silence is the opportunity.

begin here

Where is your firm?

Start a conversation with the AI Adoption Concierge, already scoped to new revenue & service lines. Choose the question closest to yours, or describe your situation directly.

AI Adoption Conciergenew revenue & service lines · orientation, not legal or ethics advice
Tell me the firm's size and what kind of clients you serve — business clients, individuals, or both. I'll help you work out what's realistic to offer. Questions about fee structures and Rule 5.7 need your own counsel.

Almost all AI content aimed at law firms is about doing current work faster, which is a margin story at best and a fee-compression story at worst. The more interesting question is what AI created that a firm can sell. Survey work published in 2026 put the gap starkly: a large majority of general counsel said AI-enabled improvements from their providers were important, a very small minority said they actually received them, and most said their external providers rarely or never raise AI with them proactively. At the same time roughly half of firms have no AI policy of their own and a majority provide no training — meaning every business client of a small firm is in the same position, without a general counsel to notice. The work being sold against that gap is recognisable, repeatable and largely accessible to firms of any size.

specialization areas

Areas in this part of the practice.

The advisory work, the delivery model that captures its value, and the client-facing capability that changes retention.

methodology

How this department investigates.

How the Institute approaches new revenue.

Rule 5.7 surfaced, not buriedSelling AI strategy and tool evaluation is law-related services. That has conduct consequences, and it is the most commonly missed point in this area.
Scoped as products, not projectsFixed scope, fixed fee, defined deliverable. Open-ended hourly advisory in a volatile field prices badly for both sides.
Sized for the firm that existsEverything in the advisory ladder here is deliverable by a five-lawyer firm. Firm-built software is not, and is described as such.
Dated, because the substrate movesThis work sells against regulation that changes. Undated advice is the failure mode.
Practise what you sellThe first question a sophisticated client asks is what your own AI policy says.
Categories, never rankingsThe Institute does not rank vendors, including in the tools you might resell or recommend.
common questions

New revenue — the questions firms ask.

Is AI governance advisory real work or a fad?

It has become a recognised practice area rather than a topic. Directory recognition of artificial intelligence as a practice category, and named AI practices at large firms, both arrived by 2026. The published service inventories at those firms are strikingly consistent and strikingly repeatable — governance programmes, internal AI policies, risk assessments, vendor contract review and negotiation, regulatory tracking, training, and incident-response planning with tabletop exercises. That repeatability is what makes it accessible below the top of the market: the substrate is the same for a Fortune 500 client and a fifty-person manufacturer, and only the depth changes.

Can a five-lawyer firm actually sell this?

The advisory ladder, yes — and arguably better than a large firm, because the buyer is a business owner rather than a general counsel and the relationship already exists. A fixed-fee AI acceptable-use policy for every business client, an AI inventory and risk register priced by system count, AI vendor contract review at a per-agreement rate, a quarterly regulatory update retainer, and fractional AI counsel on a monthly retainer are all deliverable without engineering capacity. What is not accessible at that size is building and licensing software, which is a different business with different capital requirements.

What does Rule 5.7 have to do with this?

It is the provision most likely to be missed, and it matters. AI strategy work, innovation roadmaps, business-case development and tool evaluation are law-related services rather than legal services. Under the Model Rule framework a lawyer remains subject to the rules of professional conduct for law-related services provided in circumstances not distinct from the provision of legal services — which means conflicts and confidentiality obligations follow the consulting work. Firms that want those rules not to apply need a genuinely separate entity and clear disclosure to the client that the protections of the lawyer-client relationship do not exist. Neither position is wrong; choosing one deliberately is the point, and it is a question for your own counsel.

Does selling this require the firm to be good at AI itself?

Visibly, yes. The first question a sophisticated buyer asks is what the firm's own AI policy says and what tools it uses — and a firm selling AI governance while having none is an obvious and avoidable embarrassment. Beyond credibility there is a practical reason: the advisory work is substantially easier if the firm has already been through the inventory, the vendor diligence and the policy drafting on itself. Several firms have effectively productised their own internal programme, which is the cleanest route from cost centre to revenue.

Wondering what you could actually sell?

Describe your client base. The Institute will help you work out which offerings fit.

AI adoption conciergeorientation · not legal or ethics advice
Tell me the firm's size and what kind of clients you serve — business clients, individuals, or both. I'll help you work out what's realistic to offer. Questions about fee structures and Rule 5.7 need your own counsel.