Australia vs New Zealand: What’s Shaping Legal Hiring?

Legal teams across Australia and New Zealand are operating in a market defined by sustained workloads, tighter budgets and rapidly changing expectations. While demand for legal expertise remains strong, businesses are becoming more selective about how they structure teams, allocate resources and measure the value of legal support.

The traditional role of a legal professional is also changing. Businesses increasingly expect their lawyers to contribute before a risk becomes a dispute, understand commercial pressures and provide advice that can be acted on immediately. Technical knowledge remains essential, but commercial judgement, communication and adaptability are becoming equally important.



Artificial intelligence is accelerating many of these changes. It is helping legal teams complete routine work more efficiently, but it is also creating new risks around document quality, data security, training and professional accountability.

“AI is here to stay, and all lawyers need to add it as a core skill to their legal toolkit.”

On a recent Australia and New Zealand Legal Market Update, Legal Recruitment Manager Kirsten Garrett was joined by Employment Lawyer and Workplace Relations Specialist Anamika Sharma and Special Counsel in Corporate and M&A Jarrod Tucker to compare the pressures, opportunities and emerging priorities shaping both markets.

The Australian legal market entered 2026 with strong momentum, particularly across corporate and transaction-led practice areas. Jarrod described a consistent flow of deals, including transactions valued between $50 million and $200 million, as well as activity connected to anticipated public listings.

Although economic uncertainty may affect activity later in the year, the slowdown experienced in other parts of the economy had not yet fully reached the legal sector. For firms, the immediate priority is maintaining the capacity to service active clients while preparing for possible changes in demand.

One of the most significant shifts is the speed at which transactions now progress. Technology, portable devices, video conferencing and AI have shortened response times and increased expectations. Legal teams must be able to increase or reduce their capacity quickly without compromising diligence or quality.

This is encouraging firms to develop flexible resourcing models. A stable core team can be supported by additional specialists when transaction volumes rise, helping firms move at the pace clients now expect.

In New Zealand, the demand for legal expertise is also rising, but businesses remain highly conscious of cost. From an in-house perspective, growth does not always mean simply adding more lawyers. Legal leaders are being asked to find creative ways to improve efficiency and adjust their operating models.

Anamika explained that businesses no longer want their legal teams to act only after something has gone wrong. Instead of being the “ambulance at the bottom of the cliff”, lawyers are expected to help shape strategies, identify risk early and participate in commercial decisions from the beginning.

This represents a shift from reactive legal support to proactive business partnership. In-house lawyers are increasingly embedded within business units, where they help stakeholders balance commercial objectives with legal obligations.

The expectation is no longer to provide a lengthy explanation of the law and step away. Businesses want clear recommendations, practical options and advice that reflects their immediate operational realities.

Across both markets, technical legal knowledge remains fundamental. However, high-performing lawyers are increasingly distinguished by their commercial acumen and their ability to communicate clearly.

For in-house teams, this means understanding how the business operates, what pressures stakeholders face and how legal recommendations will affect commercial outcomes. Emotional intelligence is also becoming more valuable. Lawyers must be able to read a room, manage difficult conversations and explain complex risks in language that is persuasive and easy to understand.

In private practice, lawyers also need to recognise when documents have been produced using generative AI. AI-generated agreements may appear polished while failing to reflect the commercial arrangement between the parties. Reviewing these documents requires careful legal analysis, sound judgement and the confidence to question the quality of the original draft.

AI is already being used for initial document reviews, case law summaries, drafting and high-volume administrative work. As these tasks become more automated, legal professionals will have more time to focus on strategic advice, negotiation, stakeholder management and complex decision-making.

However, adoption remains uneven. The discussion highlighted that many firms still do not provide structured AI or technology training, despite strong interest from legal professionals who want to build these skills.

Some firms are responding by developing internal tools that provide greater control over functionality, data security and pricing. Others are helping clients create AI playbooks that establish approved use cases and support more consistent outputs.

The challenge is to move quickly without ignoring the risks. Lawyers need to understand how to use AI effectively, when its outputs require further scrutiny and how confidentiality, accuracy and accountability must be protected.

What should legal teams prioritise to remain competitive?

• Build flexible resourcing models that can respond quickly to changing transaction volumes and workloads.

• Involve legal professionals earlier in commercial planning so risks can be addressed before they become disputes.

• Strengthen commercial acumen and encourage lawyers to understand the operational realities of the businesses they advise.

• Invest in emotional intelligence, stakeholder communication and the ability to explain complex legal issues simply.

• Provide practical AI training that covers effective use, document review, data security and professional risk.

• Use AI to improve efficiency while keeping human judgement at the centre of strategic and high-risk legal work.