Legal Teams Back GenAI to Prove Value, but Most Still Track Only Costs

A survey of 284 in-house legal leaders

The report, titled The Role of GenAI in Proving Corporate Law Department Value, was produced by Everlaw and the Association of Corporate Counsel. According to Everlaw, corporate law departments have long been seen as cost centers, and generative AI could help change that perception by letting teams present themselves as strategic partners.

The central finding is a mismatch. Most in-house teams track cost-based metrics such as total outside counsel spend, but few capture metrics that link their work to outcomes. That leaves them at a disadvantage when showing contributions to what the C-suite cares most about: risk mitigation, business speed and growth.

Confidence in GenAI is high. Only 4% of respondents doubt its potential to help them demonstrate value. Four in 10 say it will, while nearly 6 in 10 say it can.

Speed and efficiency are the first payoffs

Respondents see speed as the biggest benefit so far. Some 81% expect GenAI to accelerate legal support and matter resolution, and 76% say it will reshape how their teams work, with a positive effect on internal efficiency and resourcing.

The tasks departments expect to handle more cost effectively in-house with GenAI include drafting, contract management and legal research, as well as some aspects of M&A and litigation work.

Outside counsel management is another area. Respondents say GenAI will help them:

• identify cost-saving opportunities on outside counsel services (43%)
• improve analysis of law firm billing patterns (42%)
• better forecast budgets (36%)

Where the metrics fall short

The survey shows many teams, particularly at smaller organizations, still focus on cost indicators. A large majority track outside counsel spend (83%) and billing rates (54%). In litigation, 72% report on indicators such as total matter spend. These figures support fiscal oversight but, the report says, do not give a full picture of value.

Outcome-focused tracking is rare. Only 12% track metrics to assess outside counsel performance, and the same share measures technology ROI. Just 9% track their impact on business outcomes. In litigation, 39% measure forecast versus actual spend, and 16% track outcomes relative to cost. Another 18% do not track litigation metrics, and 13% track no metrics at all.

Everlaw argues that even sophisticated GenAI tools cannot make up for missing historical data or inconsistent performance tracking, which it calls essentials for proving impact to the CEO.

New uses and remaining barriers

Some legal teams are testing more advanced applications. Use cases under exploration include surfacing insights across large matters, projecting litigation outcomes, detecting fraud and comparing performance across law firms. Some teams are also building new services for internal clients, such as custom GPTs for procurement playbooks and AI companions for high-volume, low-impact matters.

Obstacles remain. Respondents cite tight budgets, data security concerns and the need for training. Even so, nearly 70% say adopting GenAI for tracking and reporting will be a top priority within the next three to five years.

What it means for legal departments

The report concludes that legal departments are in transition, trying to redefine themselves as strategic contributors rather than cost centers. According to Everlaw, that requires moving beyond efficiency gains to metrics tied to risk reduction, speed and strategic insight. It also calls for strategic technology investment, strong data governance and new skills in AI-driven analysis.

For teams, the message is that GenAI adoption alone will not demonstrate value. Reliable measurement, built on consistent data, is what lets them show impact across the business.