Last updated: 11 November 2026. This article is based on the Thomson Reuters Future of Professionals Report 2026 (published 22 June 2026), the accompanying Thomson Reuters press release, and Thomson Reuters’ law firm summary of the same survey. All figures are Thomson Reuters’ own. Thomson Reuters sells legal AI products, including CoCounsel, which is worth bearing in mind when reading a report about AI.
Short answer: The Future of Professionals 2026 report, based on a survey of 1,816 professionals in 62 countries, finds that AI use is now routine but the value is not arriving. 74% use AI several times a week, yet 41% lack professional-grade tools, 34% use unapproved AI, and only 6% of corporate clients say most of their firms deliver AI-driven quality improvements.
Key takeaways
- Adoption is no longer the question: 74% of professionals use AI tools several times a week and 44% use them several times a day.
- Clients are ahead of their advisers: 78% of corporate clients call AI-enabled quality improvements very important or essential, but only 6% get them from most or all providers.
- Strategy pays off on paper: 66% of professionals in firms with a named AI strategy say AI meets or beats expectations, against 22% where there is none.
- Lawyers face a specific problem: legal professionals expect the route to trusted, independent judgement to get about 1.7 years longer because of AI.
What is the Future of Professionals report?
It is an annual survey by the Thomson Reuters Institute, now in its fourth edition. The 2026 report draws on 1,816 professionals across law, tax, audit, accounting, compliance, risk and global trade, working in private practice firms and in corporate and government departments in 62 countries. Fieldwork ran in March and April 2026, and the report was published on 22 June 2026 under the title “When the AI strategy doesn’t reach the desk”.
Earlier editions asked whether AI would change professional work. This one assumes it has and asks what firms lose when their AI plans do not reach day-to-day practice. Most figures cover all professions together. Where Thomson Reuters gives a legal-only figure, we say so.
What are the ten numbers that matter?
| # | Figure | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 74% | Professionals using AI several times a week (44% several times a day) |
| 2 | 41% | AI users without access to tools built for professional work on verified content |
| 3 | 34% | Professionals using AI tools their organisation has not sanctioned |
| 4 | 78% vs 6% | Corporate clients who value AI-enabled quality improvements vs those who get them from most or all providers |
| 5 | 32% | Clients reconsidering, or planning to reconsider within 12 months, firms they think are falling behind |
| 6 | 66% vs 22% | AI meeting or beating expectations with a named strategy vs with no active strategy |
| 7 | 35% | Professionals with a named strategy who say it is not visible in their daily work |
| 8 | 24% and $232,000 | Professionals with an AI value gap considering leaving within two years, and the estimated cost to replace each one |
| 9 | 32% vs 12% | Professionals who would turn down a job without professional-grade AI: current users vs those without access |
| 10 | 1.7 years | How much longer legal professionals expect it to take to reach trusted, independent judgement |
1. 74%: AI use is now routine
Nearly three quarters of respondents use AI tools several times a week, and 44% several times a day. That settles the adoption debate for this sample. The rest of the report is about what happens next.
2. 41%: many users lack the right tools
Professionals were clear about minimum standards: 96% said AI tools must safeguard confidential data, 94% that outputs must be grounded in authoritative content and 90% that reasoning must be explainable and defensible. Yet 41% of those using AI at work do not have tools that meet those conditions. For lawyers, the confidentiality point overlaps with the duties set out in ABA Formal Opinion 512.
3. 34%: shadow AI is common
A third of professionals admit using AI their organisation has not approved, in ways it cannot see. Thomson Reuters’ press release says the rate rises to 41% among those who think their organisation is moving too slowly. Its law firm summary puts the figure for law firm professionals at 34% too. The practical answer is a written policy that people actually follow; our guide to writing a law firm AI policy sets out a structure.
4. 78% vs 6%: the client gap
This is the most striking pair in the report. 78% of corporate clients say receiving AI-enabled quality improvements from their providers is very important or essential. Just 6% say most or all of their providers deliver it.
5. 32%: clients are already moving
32% of corporate clients have reconsidered, or plan within 12 months to reconsider, relationships with firms they see as falling behind on AI. A third of those estimate more than $1 million in annual work is at risk. In its press release, Thomson Reuters extrapolates this to up to $143 billion of combined US legal and accounting revenue “under active reconsideration”. That is a modelled estimate, not a survey answer, and should be read that way.
6. 66% vs 22%: having a strategy matters
Where a firm or department has a named AI strategy, 66% of professionals say AI is meeting or exceeding expectations for creating value. Without an active strategy, the figure falls to 22%. The law firm summary gives a similar split of 64% against 29%. This is correlation rather than proof, but the gap is large.
7. 35%: strategies are not reaching the desk
Among those whose organisation has a named strategy, 35% say it is not visible in their daily work, and a further 17% say there is no strategic direction on AI at all. Together, the report says, around half the profession works where the strategy on paper does not match reality. The reasons given were tools not yet in place (47%), people not trained to work the intended way (43%), no clear operational priorities (32%) and no shared understanding of the plan (30%). All four are management problems, not technical ones. A structured trial helps here, and our guide to running a legal AI pilot that produces a decision covers how.
8. 24% and $232,000: the talent bill
More than nine in ten professionals report some gap between what AI could do and what their organisation delivers. Among them, 24% are considering leaving within two years. Thomson Reuters puts the replacement cost at an estimated $232,000 per professional. Mid-career staff are the most exposed group: almost three in ten would change jobs within two years if AI fails to deliver, and 14% are considering it within 12 months.
9. 32% vs 12%: AI access is becoming a hiring factor
Among professionals who already use professional-grade AI, 32% would turn down a role that did not offer it. Among those without access, 12% say the same. The press release adds that 62% say such access would factor into accepting a new role. For law firms specifically, Thomson Reuters reports that 24% of law firm professionals would categorically decline an offer without it.
10. 1.7 years: a longer road to judgement for lawyers
48% of all respondents fear AI will harm the development of independent judgement, and 71% say early-career roles need structured support from experienced colleagues. The legal figure stands out. Legal professionals expect the time it takes to reach trusted judgement to lengthen by 1.7 years. Tax professionals expect it to shorten by a year. The likely reason is that the routine drafting and review that trained junior lawyers is the work AI now does first. We look at one response in Should junior lawyers become legal engineers?
What does the report say specifically about law firms?
Thomson Reuters’ law firm summary draws on responses from more than 736 law firm professionals in 46 countries. Its headline figures:
- 38% of law firm professionals report significant or some financial pressure to move faster on AI.
- 34% use AI their firm has not approved.
- 24% would decline a job offer without access to professional-grade AI.
- 32% of in-house legal professionals are reconsidering, or will reconsider within 12 months, firms that do not show clear AI-enabled value.
The report also asked which of three futures people want. 52% prefer “Elevate”, where AI handles groundwork and humans focus on judgement. 31% prefer “Scale”, where AI mainly adds capacity. 7% prefer “Reimagine”, a full rebuild of the business model, and 8% chose none. The report found that 35% work somewhere whose AI direction does not match their own, and those people are almost twice as likely to be thinking about leaving within 12 months.
How much weight should you give these figures?
The report is useful, but readers should keep four limits in mind:
- Who wrote it. Thomson Reuters sells AI tools to the same professionals, and the report uses its own trademarked term, “Fiduciary-Grade AI”. Our CoCounsel review covers its main legal product.
- Method. The report gives the sample size, countries and dates, but not the sampling method, weighting, margin of error or question wording.
- Mixed professions. Most numbers combine lawyers with accountants, auditors and compliance staff, so legal-only figures are the exception.
- Small inconsistencies. The press release refers to 1,800 respondents and the report to 1,816. One chart shows 26% of those with a value gap considering leaving within two years, while the key findings say 24%. Neither changes the overall picture.
Independent coverage, such as LawSites, summarised the same core figures without adding outside data. The full PDF of the 2026 report is free to download.
What should firms do with these numbers?
The report ends with five questions for leaders. Turned into actions, they come to this:
- Make the AI strategy specific enough that each team can say what it changes this week.
- Treat shadow AI as a signal of unmet demand, then supply approved tools that meet confidentiality and verification standards.
- Measure use, not licences. Thomson Reuters found that 18% of people with access to professional-grade AI are not using it.
- Talk to mid-career lawyers, the group most likely to leave.
- Rebuild training so juniors still learn judgement, for example by reviewing AI output alongside senior colleagues.
If you are comparing tools, our directory of legal AI software and assistants groups the main options by use.
Frequently asked questions
When was the Future of Professionals Report 2026 published?
Thomson Reuters published it on 22 June 2026. It is the fourth annual edition, based on a survey carried out in March and April 2026.
How many people did Thomson Reuters survey?
1,816 professionals across law, tax, audit, accounting, compliance, risk and global trade, in 62 countries. Thomson Reuters’ law firm summary says more than 736 of them work in law firms, across 46 countries.
What percentage of professionals use AI, according to the report?
74% use AI tools several times a week, and 44% use them several times a day. However, 41% of those using AI at work lack tools designed for professional work on verified content.
What is shadow AI in the report?
It means using AI tools the organisation has not sanctioned, in ways it cannot see. 34% of respondents admitted doing so, rising to 41% among those who think their organisation is moving too slowly on AI.
Where does the $143 billion figure come from?
It appears in Thomson Reuters’ press release as an estimate of combined US legal and accounting client revenue under active reconsideration. It is extrapolated from the client survey, not reported directly by respondents.
What does the report say about junior lawyers?
48% of respondents fear AI will harm the development of independent judgement. Legal professionals expect the path to trusted judgement to lengthen by 1.7 years, while 71% of all respondents say early-career staff need structured support from experienced peers.
Where the legal industry reads first.
Enjoyed this article? Get the biggest legal industry updates, deals, appointments, insights and expert interviews in your inbox, free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.From Legal Desire
Is your firm the one being cited, or the one being skipped?
We ran the test. On several everyday legal questions, software companies are answering and law firms are not. We help firms fix that, and we build the technology behind the practice.
Lawyers and firms: get featured on Legal Desire
Share your deals, lateral moves, firm news and insights with 1M+ monthly readers: founders, law firm partners, general counsel and practising lawyers across the US, UK, EU and GCC.
Get featuredSubmit a press release
