The BigLaw Pyramid has shaped hiring and advancement in elite firms for decades. Traditionally, it relies on large groups of junior associates who support a smaller tier of senior lawyers and partners. However, new research now suggests that this familiar structure may shift as artificial intelligence becomes more central to legal work. Consequently, AI’s rapid growth is pushing firms to rethink how many associates they hire, how they train them, and how they organize their internal workforce.
A report from Citigroup and Hildebrandt Consulting reveals a key change. Many firms plan to increase their total number of associates through 2027. Yet, they do not plan to expand their first-year or summer associate classes. These entry-level groups have long formed the foundation of the BigLaw Pyramid, but firms appear less dependent on them as AI automates routine tasks.
Generative AI already handles document review, basic research, and drafting support. Previously, these tasks filled the workload of junior associates. Now, as that work shifts to technology, firms are reconsidering the size and shape of their talent pipeline.
How AI Is Reshaping the BigLaw Pyramid Staffing Model
The report suggests that the traditional BigLaw Pyramid may begin to look more like a cylinder. Firms expect fewer junior associates at the base and more mid-level and senior attorneys in the middle. Additionally, many firms have already expanded counsel and non-equity partner roles. AI’s rise may accelerate these trends.
Gretta Rusanow of Citi’s law firm group notes the challenge. Training junior lawyers becomes harder when AI removes the work that once taught them core skills. Therefore, firms must find new ways to develop talent while still adopting efficient tools. This remains an open question for many leaders.
Two-thirds of large firms expect AI to influence their leverage ratios by 2035. Overall, change will be gradual, but the direction is clear. The historic pyramid structure is under pressure.
AI’s Impact on the BigLaw Pyramid and the Billable Hour
The billable hour model depends on junior associates logging time on basic tasks. However, AI reduces the need for those hours. That shift weakens a major revenue source for firms that depend on large associate pools.
Some firms are experimenting with fixed fees and subscription models. Meanwhile, others are blending traditional billing with tech-enhanced services. Clients expect efficiency, so firms must adapt.
AI also raises ethical and accuracy concerns. Lawyers must review outputs and maintain professional judgment. As a result, this oversight slows adoption but does not stop it.
Training Challenges Inside the New BigLaw Pyramid
A thinner base of junior lawyers creates a long-term issue. Namely, who becomes the next generation of seasoned litigators and dealmakers? Firms once relied on repetitive tasks to teach young associates. Yet, AI now completes much of that work.
To protect the future of the profession, firms may need new training systems. These could include simulated exercises, structured learning programs, and intensive mentoring. Furthermore, law schools may need to expand practical education as well.
The BigLaw Pyramid has always served as a training engine. If the base shrinks, firms must build a new learning model.
A Slow but Inevitable Evolution
Law firms change at a slow pace. They face strict client expectations and must ensure accuracy at every stage of work. AI adoption will grow, but firms are unlikely to transform overnight.
Routine tasks will still require oversight, even with advanced tools. Moreover, many clients prefer experienced lawyers, which supports growth in the middle ranks. That shift supports a move toward a cylinder-shaped pyramid.
Despite the slow evolution, the direction is steady. AI is now a core part of legal operations. Thus, firms are preparing for long-term change in staffing, training, and billing.
Broader Industry Context
This structural shift in staffing comes at a time of increasing scrutiny of legal practices. A federal judge recently sanctioned a firm for filing what the court deemed a frivolous securities lawsuit. The ruling highlights a push for higher accountability in litigation tactics.
In another case, Google challenged a $181 million attorney-fee award in an antitrust matter. The company argued that the request was excessive. Collectively, these disputes show how legal fees and firm conduct are under closer watch today.
As the industry evolves, firms must balance technology adoption with ethical standards, financial pressures, and client expectations.
Ready to find your next legal opportunity? Explore thousands of verified attorney jobs on LawCrossing and take the next step in your legal career today.
