After decades of predictions about the demise of the billable hour, large law firms are again reassessing how they price legal work, this time under sustained pressure from artificial intelligence. Senior leaders across the industry say the conversation has shifted from theory to execution, even if 2026 is more likely to mark continued momentum than wholesale transformation.

Executives at global firms such as Baker McKenzie say client interest in alternative fee arrangements (AFAs) is no longer anecdotal but persistent. As AI tools promise to compress timelines for research, document review and other repeatable tasks, clients are increasingly questioning whether traditional hourly billing still reflects value. The dynamic is explored in detail in a recent American Lawyer report examining how pricing discussions are evolving inside the Am Law 100.

Firm leaders caution, however, that the shift will be uneven. High-stakes, bespoke matters are still viewed as poorly suited to fixed or flat fees, particularly where outcomes are uncertain and AI tools remain limited. By contrast, commoditized or high-volume work is emerging as the most likely testing ground for new pricing structures, especially where technology can replace hours traditionally billed by junior lawyers.

Recruiters and consultants say competitive pressure may prove as influential as technology. Clients with deep benches of outside counsel are increasingly willing to reward firms that offer flexibility and predictability on price. In that sense, AFAs are becoming less a philosophical stance and more a commercial differentiator.

Industry research reinforces that view. A recent report by The BTI Consulting Group and McKenna Associates links AI adoption with growing client assertiveness, particularly among chief legal officers seeking tighter control over outside counsel spend. The authors suggest U.S. firms may follow European and Asian counterparts that have already normalized alternative pricing for significant portions of their work.

Still, even proponents of change emphasize trust and data as prerequisites. Fixed fees require clear scoping, historical benchmarks and a willingness on both sides to share risk. Many clients, while vocal about dissatisfaction with rate increases, continue to default to hourly billing when matters become complex or unpredictable.

The result is a legal market in transition. AI has accelerated long-running debates about value and efficiency, but it has not resolved them. For corporate legal departments and large firms alike, 2026 is shaping up less as a breaking point and more as another year of experimentation, negotiation and incremental change.