A new Thomson Reuters study finds the professions have moved past whether to use AI. What firms cannot yet answer is whether they can prove it works. 

[For more news, click here]

by Zaara Abbas, Digital Media Reporter at Tech Revolt

Earlier this year, in a federal courtroom in Manhattan, a criminal defendant learned what is at stake when professional judgment meets consumer-grade technology. In United States v. Heppner, the court found he had forfeited attorney-client privilege by feeding his legal exposure into a free public chatbot without direction from his lawyers. While the tool itself proved to be capable, the context it was used in helped no one. 

That distinction sits at the center of the 2026 Future of Professionals report released this week by Thomson Reuters. Drawn from more than 1,800 lawyers, accountants, auditors and compliance professionals across 62 countries, it makes a claim that should unsettle any managing partner still treating AI as a roadmap item. Up to $143 billion in U.S. client revenue is now under active reconsideration, and a meaningful share of the profession’s own talent is preparing to walk. 

From Adoption to Execution 

The conversation about getting professionals to use AI is over. 74 percent now reach for these tools several times a week, and 44 percent use them multiple times a day. Within companies, adoption is not the obstacle. Firms are still unable to showcase their value.  

91 percent of users say their organizations fall short of what the technology can deliver, a shortfall the report labels the “AI value gap.” 35 percent say their firm’s AI ambitions are nowhere in their day-to-day work, and nearly one in five say their firm has no clear strategy at all.  

Law firm technology spending grew 9.7 percent in 2025, yet firms with a formal AI strategy are roughly four times more likely to report critical benefits than those without one. The money is being spent; the discipline to convert it into results is what separates the leaders from the laggards. 

What Clients Are Pricing In 

78 percent of corporate clients now consider AI-enabled quality improvements very important or essential when choosing a provider, however, just 6 percent believe most of their current providers deliver it. Up to 32 per cent of these clients are reconsidering provider relationships with a third putting more than $1 million in annual work at risk per relationship. Across the U.S. legal and CPA markets, that is the roughly $143 billion under active reconsideration. 

The Talent Math Leaders get Wrong 

Leaders being unable to hear the talent signal may be more dangerous than they realise. Among professionals who see a gap between what AI can do and what their employer provides, one in four would consider leaving within two years, and 13 percent within twelve months, at a replacement cost of roughly $232,000 each. Mid-career staff, the most embedded and most mobile, are the likeliest to go. Yet almost half of senior leaders believe meaningful talent pressure is still three years away. Access to professional-grade tools is now a hiring condition with 62 percent saying it would factor into accepting a role, and among current users, nearly one in three would turn a job down without it.

Shadow AI and Accountability 

Firms failing to provide tools has not slowed down their use. One third of professionals are already using AI their organization has not approved, rising to 41 percent where they feel the firm moves too slowly. 96 percent say their AI must safeguard confidential data, 94 percent require verified content, and 90 percent need outputs they can defend, yet 41 percent lack tools that clear those bars. The Shadow AI gap converts to consequences such as those which can be seen in the case of United States v. Heppner. 

Steve Hasker, President and CEO of Thomson Reuters, frames the divide bluntly. 

“We’re seeing a clear divide emerge. Firms that are operationalizing AI are pulling ahead. Those that aren’t are starting to take on real risk, across talent, clients, and financial performance. Closing that execution gap is now a business imperative for professional firms.” 

The report’s answer is a framework it calls Fiduciary-Grade AI providing authoritative, domain-specific content; rigorous privacy and security; subject-matter expertise; transparent, verifiable outputs; and real-time human support. The argument is not that AI must be flawless, but that AI shaping legal judgments, filings or client advice must be defensible. 

“Not all AI is created equal. In professions where there is real liability, the standard has to be much higher. When outputs shape legal judgments, regulatory filings, or client advice, ‘almost right’ isn’t good enough. That’s why we build what we call Fiduciary Grade AI, technology professionals can verify, trust, and ultimately stand behind.” 

Meanwhile, AI-native firms are targeting the high-volume work that long subsidized traditional partnerships, splitting the market between tech-first platforms and premium judgment work. The technology is no longer the bottleneck, rather, organizational will, governance and execution are. That transition has stopped being optional, and according to both clients and talent, it already happened. 

Related Articles:

Saudi Arabia Has Built the Right AI Foundations, According to PwC. Turning Them Into Profit Is the Next Test

Why Trust Has Become the Most Valuable Currency in MENA's Digital Payment Revolution

The Gulf Has Plenty of AI Ambition. Solutions+ and Inception Want to Make It Actually Work