Law firm COO survey finds two-thirds of firms are not formally documenting AI efficiency gains, creating a strategic accountability gap as investment scales
A survey of 213 law firm chief operating officers (COOs) and principal administrators, published in the 2026 Law Firm COO Survey Report by Blickstein Group, finds that roughly two-thirds of respondents say their firm does not formally document the efficiency gains generated by artificial intelligence tools. The report describes the resulting situation as a 'strategic blind spot': firms are investing materially in AI, but the expected benefits 'remain beliefs' rather than verified outcomes. The absence of formal measurement means that COOs investing in AI tools and training programmes will increasingly face scrutiny from firm leadership about return on investment without the evidence base needed to justify continued or expanded expenditure. The report warns that if firms are spending on AI without measuring the return, COOs will 'eventually have to answer challenging questions about these major investments in money and training.' A separate study from SurePoint Technologies and The Tilt Institute, the Elevating Law Firm Leadership report, found that a significant proportion of law firm leaders from Am Law 200, international, and boutique firms spend 36 or more hours per month on leadership responsibilities that do not generate client billable time, equating to roughly $2 million in annual opportunity cost per ten leaders. The data suggests that AI could theoretically reduce non-billable administrative burden, but only if firms design governance frameworks that actually track and demonstrate that outcome. The two studies together point to a structural gap in how law firms are approaching AI governance: adoption is outrunning accountability.
Why this matters
The measurement gap identified by the Blickstein Group survey has direct implications for law firms' AI governance posture and for the legal technology advisory market. Firms that cannot demonstrate efficiency gains from AI investments are also unlikely to have the internal frameworks needed to assess whether those tools create regulatory risk, including data protection compliance, confidentiality obligations, and professional conduct rules around AI-assisted work product. For law students targeting City firms, the survey signals that the next wave of legal technology investment will need to be accompanied by rigorous governance and documentation infrastructure, creating demand for lawyers who understand both the technology and the regulatory accountability framework around it. The finding that two-thirds of firms lack formal measurement is also a due diligence risk for clients who are increasingly asking their external counsel to evidence the AI tools in use and their quality assurance processes.
On the Ground
On an AI governance or legal technology instruction, a trainee would assist with drafting an AI governance policy setting out the firm's approved tools, permitted use cases, and documentation requirements for AI-assisted work product. Preparing a regulatory impact assessment memo covering data protection and professional conduct implications, and completing vendor due diligence questionnaires for AI tool providers, would also be standard tasks in this practice area.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“What governance and accountability frameworks should a law firm put in place when deploying AI tools in client-facing legal work?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeSources
My notes
saved