AMLaw100 Archives - The Alexander Group

The days of questioning the importance of Artificial Intelligence are over. Staying competitive and ahead of the curve means delving into AI from both leadership and technological perspectives, and knowing where to start is crucial. From boutique law firms to AmLaw legacies, AI is transforming how leadership approaches all aspects of law firm operations.

Rethinking Leadership Roles

Larger firms such as Cooley and Milbank are AI pioneers, establishing internal workflows and protocols, while also serving their clients’ AI needs. Smaller and regional firms are also adapting, incorporating AI into their practice and adding leaders to the executive roster to implement and execute AI. And while technology is intrinsically tied to AI, staying competitive requires executive talent with a broader, more adaptive skill set – prompting firm leadership to ask the following:

Who should lead this transformation?

Should that person have a JD?
Where in the org chart do they belong—IT, strategy, operations?

Managing Director John Mann has his finger on the pulse of the fast-changing needs of boutique and regional firms, finding that AI leaders may not be who you think.

“What’s particularly interesting is that, more often than not, the person leading the AI function within a law firm comes from a legal background,” Mann said. “In my research and conversations, the consistent feedback is that it’s critical for AI leadership to have a legal background, typically a JD, or experience at another law firm. This isn’t about a Chief Information Officer simply implementing off-the-shelf AI tools. Law firms recognize that to remain competitive, especially midsized firms, they must strategically harness AI, because the larger firms are already doing so.”

Survey Says Yes to AI—But With Caution

A 2025 survey of more than 2,800 legal professionals by the Federal Bar Association tracked the changes in AI adoption by lawyers in firms of various sizes.

Respondents from firms with 51 or more lawyers reported a significant 39% adoption rate of generative AI. By contrast, firms with 50 or fewer lawyers had adoption rates at half that level, with approximately 20% indicating the implementation of legal-specific AI within their practices.

In the survey, respondents indicated that the bulk of AI usage falls into business operations, with 54% of legal professionals using AI to draft correspondence, 14% using it to analyze firm data and matters, and 47% expressing interest in AI tools that assist in obtaining insights from a firm’s financial data.

Thomson Reuters surveyed more than 2,200 legal professionals and C-level corporate executives regarding their acceptance and usage of AI and compiled the results in the 2024 Future of Professionals Report. Respondents have warmed to the technology, raising expectations for its use.

77% of respondents believe AI will have a high or transformational impact on their work by the next five years. That’s an increase of 10 percentage points over the 2023 report’s responses.
72% of legal professionals surveyed in the report view AI as a force for good in their profession.
Half of law firm respondents cite exploring and implementing AI as their highest priority. In addition, they believe AI can help address other priorities, such as enhancing customer satisfaction and improving operational efficiency.

Despite the growing AI implementation, Mann finds law firm leadership is staying vigilant and intentional with AI use, especially when attorney-client confidentiality is concerned.

“The AI landscape is still the Wild West,” Mann said. “I recently had a conversation with a managing partner of a 50-attorney firm, and he said they have restricted the use of AI tools for client matters because of the potential breach of attorney-client privilege. Bottom line? They implemented a policy restricting the use of AI in any client matters.”

New Technology, New Strategies

Firms are looking beyond the IT department for the strategic role, prioritizing an executive’s legal experience and deep understanding of technology to drive efficiency, reduce billing bottlenecks, and enhance client outcomes.

Whether a firm labels the role Chief Innovation Officer, Chief Data and AI Officer, or Director of Innovation, there are consistent requirements for each, including 10 or more years of experience in legal operations, professional services innovation, or technology consulting and a proven ability to lead cross-functional innovation or technology initiatives in a law firm or professional services environment.

Ultimately, AI and its presence within law firm structure and leadership are making their own rules, challenging norms and definitions at every turn.

“AI is coming up as its own function and is not tethered to any one functional area,” Mann said. “There’s the tech piece of course, but there’s also strategy and a need for understanding and expertise in the practice of law. The question many firms are asking is, ‘How can we operate more efficiently to drive greater revenue and profitability?’ And for most, the answer increasingly points to leveraging AI to get there.”

Law firm governance models are central to The Alexander Group’s work, which involves assisting law firms in recruiting executives (many from outside the legal industry) to run their business operations. As law firm administrative talent has become more sophisticated, governance structures have evolved significantly. Rarely do law firms’ managing partners or chairs maintain robust legal practices today.

Moreover, the role of chair or managing partner is no longer a lifetime assignment, as it often was in the past.

AmLaw 100 Leadership Strategies for Evolving Governance Models

Although virtually all firms on the AMLaw 100 list have an executive or management committee that functions like a corporate board of directors, some firms are taking different approaches to the top leadership position of a firm. One approach that is becoming increasingly popular is for a firm to elect two co-managing partners, or both a chair and a managing partner. This dual leadership structure is adaptable across various types of law firms, from regional practices to global powerhouses, ensuring that governance models are tailored to their operational scope.

One of the co-managing partners or the chair will focus on strategy and external issues, while the other two will ensure that their firms run well. Schulte Roth, Kramer Levin, Kobre & Kim, Sullivan & Cromwell, Mayer Brown, and K&L Gates are examples of firms adopting this leadership structure.

To explore how dual leadership structures function in practice, John Lamar, a seasoned consultant specializing in law firm strategy, sat down with Michael Caccese, Chairman of K&L Gates LLP. In this interview, they discuss the firm’s governance model, the division of responsibilities between the chairman and managing partner, and how their collaborative approach has helped navigate challenges like global growth and the COVID-19 pandemic. Their conversation provides valuable insights into the benefits and best practices of adopting this innovative leadership structure.

Examining Law Firm Governance at K&L Gates LLP

As a prominent firm on the AMLaw 100 list, K&L Gates LLP employs approximately 2,000 lawyers across five continents. It has grown rapidly over the last twenty years through key acquisitions and organic growth. This growth reflects the scalability of governance models across different types of law firms, showcasing the adaptability of strategic leadership.

Here is my conversation with K&L Gates Chairman Michael Caccese about how this governance structure works.

John Lamar: K&L Gates is recognized for its strong operational foundation, culture, and governance structure. You serve as the firm’s chairman, and Jim Segerdahl serves as managing partner. Both of you and your partners describe this structure as a successful and synergistic partnership between the two of you. Can you talk about how that came about?

Mike Caccese: Prior to March 2017, K&L Gates firm leadership had one person serving in both roles. The firm’s Management Committee believed for numerous reasons that because of the growth of the firm both geographically and in headcount, along with the complexities of operating a global law firm in the 21st century, the roles of chairman and global managing partner should be separated.

John Lamar: Did you both assume your role at the same time?

Mike Caccese: Jim and I started our roles in March 2017.

John Lamar: Did you have a close working relationship previously?

Mike Caccese: Jim and I had a working relationship for many years, although I worked in our Boston office, and he is based in our Pittsburgh office. We were both members of the management committee and served as the two Vice Chairmen of the firm prior to 2017, which gave us the opportunity to work closely on firm strategic issues.

John Lamar: How do you divide responsibilities today in your respective roles as chairman and global managing partner?

Mike Caccese: Jim, as the Global Managing Partner, is responsible for the day-to-day management of the law firm and implementing the firm’s strategies established by the Management Committee. My role as Chairman is to work closely with the Management Committee on strategy, ensure that they receive the resources needed to fulfill their duties to the partnership, work closely with Jim on client and industry outreach, and assist Jim in implementing firm strategy.

John Lamar: How often do you communicate?

Mike Caccese: Jim and I communicate almost daily and use each other as sounding boards for addressing firm and industry issues.

John Lamar: How has your relationship and interaction with each other changed since Covid?

Mike Caccese: Since Jim and I assumed our roles, our relationship has become very close. COVID has only made it closer, with both of us and the Management Committee addressing the Covid-related challenges facing law firms, industry, and clients, few of which are the same across the various markets and geographies in which K&L Gates operates.

John Lamar: Since you had not worked from the same office or practice group previously, what did you both do to get the relationship off to such a positive footing?

Mike Caccese: It was not difficult. We both communicated frequently, shared similar visions, and focused on basing decisions on what was best for the partnership. Communication, respect, transparency, and a common goal enable us to work together seamlessly for the benefit of the partnership.

John Lamar: We are seeing many of our other clients considering dual management roles such as the one you and Jim share. What advice would you offer them?

Mike Caccese: Do not be hesitant to separate the two roles. Running a law firm is very complex, multi-faceted, and takes a team effort. Make sure that the two leaders have excellent communication and listening skills and both operate towards the same goals. Finally, the roles should be well defined, and one of the two positions should be clearly responsible for the day-to-day running of the law firm. One decision maker, two strategists.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Law Firm Leadership Structures

Since the start of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has set in motion an avalanche of both short- and long-term challenges for business leaders. Executives were faced with the short-term challenges of finding ways to keep their businesses functioning amid quarantine orders, revenue losses, and office closures. Law firm knowledge management became an indispensable tool during this period, enabling firms to maintain operational continuity by efficiently accessing and sharing critical information.

How CSOs Strengthen Law Firm Governance Models

To work through the long-term implications of this global disruption, many organizations turned to their Chief Strategy Officer (CSO), a multifaceted individual tasked with developing and executing strategic initiatives. Major global companies such as Kohl’s, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Petco, Molson Coors, and global law firm Kobre & Kim have CSOs in their C-suite to help develop and execute their organization’s long-term goals.

First introduced to the C-suite in the 1990s, the CSO ensures that the organization is well-positioned to meet potential future challenges, executes the Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO) initiatives, and positions the organization for long-term success. To be effective, a CSO must build a culture of trust through institutional and industry knowledge. This trust allows them the fortitude to make difficult strategic decisions.

Similarly, the role of a Law Firm CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) has emerged as critical for shaping branding strategies, client outreach, and aligning marketing efforts with governance objectives. The job of formulating a corporate strategy traditionally has fallen on the Chief Executive Officer. Another critical aspect is law firm knowledge management, which ensures that institutional expertise is preserved, organized, and leveraged to support strategic initiatives. However, the complexities of the day-to-day operations of an organization often leave little time for chief executives to execute a long-term plan; this is where the Chief Strategy Officer steps in.

Why Law Firm Governance Models Are Key to Leadership Success in the AmLaw 100

Law firm governance models are evolving to meet the demands of a rapidly changing legal landscape. From dual leadership structures to the rising prominence of Chief Strategy Officers, effective governance and executive roles are crucial for driving growth, improving operational efficiency, and adapting to global challenges. Insights from industry leaders like K&L Gates highlight the importance of communication, strategic vision, and clearly defined responsibilities in achieving leadership success.

For more insights into executive roles in law firm management, visit The Alexander Group.