our three pillars
How legal work is actually changing: adoption, workflows, the tools legal teams use, and the questions AI raises about cost, value, and service delivery.
The gap between what organisations say about AI and what they enforce: liability, human oversight, board accountability, regulation, confidentiality, and professional responsibility.
People, not tools: changing careers, the future of junior lawyers, the rise of legal engineering and operations, and what AI means for the shape of the profession.
FEATURED RESEARCH
The State of AI in In-House Legal
The first study built for in-house, not law firms.
The research on legal AI is written for firms and tool vendors. We study the side no one covers: how in-house teams adopt AI under budget constraint, what it costs, and what guardrails sit around it. With a regional cut no one else reports.
Edition one is in the field now.
Take part for early access to the findings.
Edition One · 2026
· Independent · no vendor funding
· ~6 minutes · anonymous
Resources
The In-House AI Use Policy
The Policy-to-Practice Gap Checklist
The Policy-to-Practice Gap Checklist
A starting framework for in-house legal teams writing or revising their AI use policy. Annotated throughout, so you get the reasoning behind every clause, not just the wording. Built around the gap between what AI policies say and what teams actually enforce. Free to download.
The Policy-to-Practice Gap Checklist
The Policy-to-Practice Gap Checklist
The Policy-to-Practice Gap Checklist
A one-page self-diagnostic for in-house legal teams. Eight say/do pairs that show, line by line, where your stated AI governance and your real practice diverge.
Count the gaps; that's your map for what to fix next.
Subscribe for updates
New thinking on AI and the legal profession, straight to your inbox. No noise, no hype, just the analysis worth your time.