The first half of 2026 has prompted me to reflect on the conversations I’ve been having with General Counsel, law firm partners, legal operations leaders and lawyers across Australia. As I consider the legal industry trends Australia is experiencing, one word continues to surface: balance.

Not work-life balance, but the balance between investing in people and managing tighter budgets, embracing technology and preserving judgement, responding to increasing regulation and supporting business growth, and maintaining trusted relationships while challenging long-held assumptions about how legal services should be delivered.

Through Elevate’s Knowledge & Network Series this year, we have explored three seemingly different themes: gender equality, artificial intelligence, and balancing stakeholder expectations in a values-driven market. The more I listened to those discussions, the more I realised they were all asking the same question: how do we build legal functions that are fit for the future without losing sight of what matters most?

Why Hiring Feels Different in 2026

One observation that has stayed with me is that hiring has felt different. Recruitment processes appear to be taking longer, approvals often require greater scrutiny, roles have become increasingly specialised, and relatively few lawyers seem willing to move unless there is a compelling reason. It has made me wonder whether something more fundamental is changing.

Interestingly, very few General Counsel tell me they have less work. If anything, their teams are busier than ever. Employment law reform, privacy and cyber obligations, AI governance, regulatory change and business transformation continue to place enormous demands on legal teams. The workload has not disappeared. So why does hiring feel slower?

My instinct was to blame budgets. There is no doubt that economic conditions have sharpened the focus on cost. Every additional permanent hire now requires a stronger business case. But the more conversations I had, the less convinced I became that this is simply about budget. I think legal leaders are asking a different question. Rather than asking whether they need another lawyer, they are asking what capability the business needs and what is the smartest way to access it.

Market conditions continue to vary across Australia. Sydney continues to experience strong demand across financial services, technology, and infrastructure, while Brisbane and Perth remain buoyed by energy, resources, and major projects. Adelaide continues to grow through defence, technology, and government investment, while Melbourne appears more selective in where organisations are investing. Despite these regional differences, the conversations legal leaders are having are remarkably similar.

We have also seen restructures and redundancies across both corporate legal departments and private practice. I don’t necessarily see this as evidence of a weaker legal market. More often, it reflects organisations redesigning legal functions to better align with changing business priorities. Some are simplifying structures. Others are investing more deeply in specialist capability while reducing generalist roles. Many are reconsidering which work should remain in-house, which belongs with external advisers, and which can be supported by technology or alternative delivery models.

The Rise of the Tech-Enabled Lawyer

One phrase I have heard repeatedly this year is ‘tech-enabled lawyer’. It has become something of a buzzword, but what does it actually mean? I don’t believe it means every lawyer needs to become a technology expert. I think it means lawyers who understand how technology can improve outcomes, who know when AI can accelerate work and when human judgement remains essential, and who are curious enough to continually adapt.

Our discussions on AI through the Knowledge & Network Series have reinforced that the conversation has matured significantly. We are no longer debating whether AI belongs in legal. We are talking about governance, risk, confidentiality, implementation, and preparing people for a different way of working. AI is unlikely to replace great lawyers. It will, however, change the work they do and increase the value of judgement, commercial acumen, and trusted relationships.

Building Ecosystems, Not Just Legal Teams

Those conversations naturally lead to another question: if the nature of legal work is changing, should the way we resource legal teams also change? Not long ago, organisations effectively had two choices: recruit another lawyer or brief a law firm. Today, the landscape is far more sophisticated. Permanent lawyers, contractors, secondees, Alternative Legal Service Providers, managed legal services, legal operations specialists, and technology-enabled solutions all have a role to play.

I sometimes wonder whether we frame the discussion the wrong way. We talk about ALSPs versus law firms or contractors versus permanent lawyers as though they are competing models. In reality, the most sophisticated legal departments are building ecosystems. Rather than relying on a single resourcing model, they are combining permanent lawyers, specialist contractors, law firms, legal operations professionals, technology and alternative legal service providers to access the right capability at the right time. The question is not who should do the work. It’s what is the best way to deliver the work for the business.

Permanent lawyers remain the cornerstone of every successful legal function. They provide continuity, institutional knowledge, and leadership. Equally, there are times when engaging a specialist contractor is the smarter commercial decision. A regulatory remediation project, a major transaction, a parental leave replacement, or a transformation initiative may require highly specialised expertise for a defined period rather than another permanent role. The answer is rarely either/or.

The same applies to law firms and ALSPs. Traditional law firms remain essential advisers on complex transactions, strategic matters, and high-risk disputes. ALSPs provide flexibility, scalability, specialist expertise, and alternative delivery models that can complement both in-house teams and law firms. Increasingly, the best outcomes come from using the right combination rather than defaulting to a single model.

Redefining the Modern Legal Team

Perhaps that is the biggest lesson I have taken from the first half of 2026. The legal profession is becoming more intentional. General Counsel are asking better questions about value, capability, technology, and people. They are looking beyond traditional structures and considering what their legal teams should look like over the next decade, not just the next quarter.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. These are simply observations from the conversations I have been fortunate enough to have across the Australian legal market. But if there is one question I will continue to ask during the second half of the year, it is this: have we reached the point where we need to redefine what a modern legal team looks like? My sense is that we have. The organisations that will be best positioned for whatever comes next are likely to be those that think beyond traditional structures and take a more deliberate approach to accessing legal capability, technology, and legal service delivery.