Jennifer Johnson of Calibrate has argued that ownership and operational responsibility should track the range of functions AI touches within a firm rather than follow a single definition. The American Bar Association's Rule 5.4 currently prohibits non-lawyer ownership of law firms, but experts predict eventual deregulation to permit corporatization as AI capitalizes legal expertise. The UK and Australia have already allowed law firm corporatization, providing a model for how AI could transform labor-driven partnerships into capital-intensive enterprises.
Adoption has doubled since 2025, yet governance programs have failed to keep pace. Firms now face tension between federal deregulation efforts and increasingly strict state-level AI regulations, with no comprehensive federal AI statute in place. General counsel and firm leaders prioritizing cost control and operational efficiency confront an unresolved question: who owns AI outputs and bears accountability for their use. Without cross-functional ownership involving legal, HR, IT, and privacy teams—and without documented review gates before deployment—firms remain exposed to AI-related risks. The industry has moved from asking whether to use AI to how to manage it, with focus shifting to control, accountability, and long-term strategy.