82% of global general counsel now demand law firms disclose their use of AI in client matters, according to 2026 KPMG survey of 468 senior legal leaders
A 2026 KPMG Global General Counsel Outlook — drawing on a survey of 468 GCs (general counsel) and senior legal leaders conducted in late 2025 and early 2026 — has found that 82% of respondents agree or strongly agree that they expect their outside law firms to track and share their use of artificial intelligence in client matters. The report characterises this as a 'key indicator of AI caution' among in-house legal teams. The finding is commercially significant because it reframes AI disclosure from a voluntary best-practice question to a near-universal client expectation. Law firms that cannot demonstrate visibility into their own AI usage — whether in document review, contract drafting, research, or due diligence — risk falling short of a standard that a strong majority of their most sophisticated clients now treat as a baseline requirement. The KPMG report goes further, describing a fundamental shift in how law firms are evaluated: 'Law firms are now evaluated not only on legal expertise, but also on how effectively they deploy, govern, and explain the technologies supporting their work.' This signals that AI governance capability — the ability to audit, explain, and control AI tool use across a firm — is becoming a competitive differentiator, not merely a risk management exercise. For Magic Circle and elite US firms targeting institutional GC clients, the practical implication is clear: firms need AI governance frameworks that are client-reportable, not just internally auditable. That means investing in AI use-logging infrastructure, developing matter-level AI disclosure protocols, and training fee earners on when and how to disclose AI assistance in work product.
Why this matters
The KPMG data point — 82% of GCs demanding AI use disclosure — represents a structural shift in the law firm-client relationship. It creates immediate demand for AI governance policy development, vendor due diligence on legal AI tools, and client-facing disclosure frameworks across all major City and US firms. The 'why now' is the maturation of generative AI deployment in legal practice: after two years of rapid tool adoption, clients are catching up with their own governance expectations and imposing transparency requirements. Firms that treat AI disclosure as a reputational risk rather than a client service obligation will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage in pitch processes. This also has implications for professional indemnity insurance, as undisclosed AI-generated content in work product creates potential liability exposure.
On the Ground
A trainee involved in a firm's AI governance programme would assist with drafting AI governance policy documents covering acceptable use, mandatory disclosure triggers, and quality-control requirements for AI-assisted work product. They would also help complete vendor due diligence questionnaires for legal AI tool providers, assessing data security, model transparency, and audit trail capability.
Interview prep
Soundbite
GC disclosure demands are turning AI governance from an internal IT question into a front-office client relationship requirement.
Question you might get
“If a partner at a Magic Circle firm asked you to draft a client-facing AI disclosure protocol, what key elements would you include — and what professional conduct or liability risks would you need to address?”
Full answer
A KPMG survey of 468 general counsel finds that 82% now expect law firms to track and disclose their AI use in client matters — a near-universal expectation that transforms AI transparency from voluntary best practice into a competitive baseline. For law firms, this means AI governance frameworks must be client-reportable, not just internally auditable, which requires investment in use-logging infrastructure and matter-level disclosure protocols. The broader trend is a rapid maturation of in-house AI governance expectations: having adopted AI tools themselves, GCs understand the risks well enough to hold their outside counsel to account. Firms that can demonstrate rigorous, explainable AI governance will gain an advantage in contested panel reviews and high-value mandate pitches.
My notes
saved