Whenever BigHand shares new market benchmarking trends data, I find myself reflecting on my time in a pricing function at a law firm. This lens is always useful when I work with BigHand’s clients because I feel that common ground, but even after a few years on the solutions management side, I’m still taken right back to sitting in the thick of the trends BigHand’s latest research describes. 

One key point that stood out to me was “the next generation of pricing”. How do firms evolve their approach to legal pricing and budgeting to meet client needs? Respond to AI market pressures? Is it more people? More tech? It’s all big-picture thinking, but I believe, and the data suggests, the immediate answer is much closer than many law firm leaders might initially realise…

Law firms have a wealth of pricing potential already through the door.

Investment alone won’t affect behavioural change

The sector has made real progress. Pricing teams are becoming less niche, and finance business partners or financial analysts are now part of the commercial infrastructure in many firms. The data shows that tech is following suit, albeit slowly, with “48% of firms now using a dedicated legal pricing solution, up modestly from 46% last year and 45% the year before.”

Yet the behaviour of people that influence pricing still looks concerningly familiar. For example, when lawyers are expected to price a matter, “35% default to standard hourly rates and 28% copy pricing from a past matter without adjusting it.” Only “1% of firms say lawyers typically use pre-made templates within an existing pricing or budgeting tool when pricing a matter.”

That is where the margin starts to leak. A copied fee carries forward the assumptions, discounts and under-realisation of the original matter. A standard rate says very little about value, scope or expected effort. In both cases, the lawyer may be working hard to win good work, while the commercial model is already weaker than it needs to be.

Budgeting is where discipline pays off

The budgeting data is more encouraging. The report states that “a combined 63% now track budgets in a structured way, whether at milestones (40%) or continuously (23%).” This is important because a budget is one of the clearest pathways to convert commercial intent into matter-level discipline.

Still, a gap remains. The same section notes that “28% track only on an ad hoc basis, 7% only at the end of the matter, and just 2% don't track at all.” A budget viewed at the end of a matter is little more than a post-mortem if it doesn’t lead to preventative action for the next one. This is the practical difference I see in stronger firms. They use budgets to spot drift early and challenge assumptions to support timely conversations with clients.

The next stage is simpler than you think

For me, the next generation of pricing capability can be summed up simply:

Better commercial decisions depend on pricing expertise, trusted data and lawyer access working together.

The report shows that firms already recognise the need to move earlier. “Embedding pricing earlier in the matter lifecycle” and “enhancing client pricing transparency” are both identified as strategic focus areas for pricing functions over the next 12 months. Each is selected by 22% of firms.

The challenge is execution. If pricing guidance remains locked inside a specialist workflow, lawyers will continue to make fast decisions on instinct without the benefit of the firm’s accumulated commercial knowledge. That risk grows as clients ask sharper questions about budget and scope.

This is where the right tools earn their keep. The point is to extend existing expertise, so lawyers can access reliable templates, comparable matter data and live budget information before decisions harden. Pricing specialists can then spend more time on complex matters and strategic work where their input has the greatest impact.

BigHand’s recent acquisition of Ayora fits naturally into this picture. Soon to be embedded in BigHand Matter Pricing, its data enrichment layer helps firms work with cleaner matter data, while a streamlined user experience makes that insight easier for lawyers to use without needing to become finance experts. That is the right direction for legal pricing: better data in the background, with clearer guidance before the point of decision.

The default response cannot stay habitual

My message for law firms is straightforward: investment in pricing capability only pays off when it changes behaviour. If the default response remains a standard hourly rate or a copied precedent, the firm is not yet doing its part to empower its experts with the right intelligence at the right time. Give lawyers access to trusted pricing intelligence when it matters, so specialists can focus on the work only they can do.

BigHand’s 2026 Pricing and Budgeting Trends Analysis explores where firms are making progress and where the gaps remain. Download the full report for the market data behind the shift.