About the paper
Thomson Reuters’ Future of Professionals Report 2024 examines how AI and GenAI are reshaping professional work across legal, tax, accounting, global trade, risk, fraud, compliance, government, and corporate C-suite roles.
It is original survey research based on 2,205 responses collected through 15–20 minute surveys, with respondents across the United States, UK, Canada, Mainland Europe, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East/North Africa.
The report is heavily AI-focused because respondents identify AI as the dominant force currently driving change in professional services.
Length: 37 pages
More information / download:
https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/technology/future-of-professionals-2024/
Core Insights
1. What is the central argument of the report?
The report argues that AI and GenAI are now the dominant forces reshaping professional work, not as distant possibilities but as practical technologies already influencing strategy, workflows, value creation, pricing models, and career expectations.
The strongest evidence is that 77% of respondents believe AI will have a high or transformational impact on their work over the next five years, up from 67% in the 2023 report. The report presents this as a shift from speculative concern to more concrete expectation: professionals are no longer merely wondering whether AI matters; they are beginning to understand where and how it will affect their daily work.
The report’s tone is notably optimistic. Thomson Reuters concludes that AI can make professional work more efficient, productive, and fulfilling. It repeatedly frames AI as a way to release professionals from routine or labour-intensive tasks so they can focus on judgement-based, strategic, client-facing, and higher-value work.
However, the report does not argue that AI adoption will be automatic or risk-free. Its central argument is conditional: AI can be a force for good, but only if organisations combine adoption with responsible use, human oversight, data security, transparency, training, and new business models.
2. How are professionals currently using AI, and what does this reveal about adoption maturity?
Current AI use appears practical but still relatively early-stage. Respondents most commonly use AI-powered technologies for drafting documents, summarising information, conducting basic research, preparing communications, reviewing documents, and generating first drafts.
The report says 50% of respondents who have used AI as a starting point describe its output as “a basic starting point” where they still need to do most of the work. Another 28% say it provides “a strong starting point” that mainly requires editing. This suggests that AI is already useful, but professionals still see it primarily as an assistant rather than an autonomous producer of reliable final work.
The main barriers among non-users are also revealing. Concerns centre on accuracy, data security, ethics, uncertainty about what AI can be used for, and uncertainty about how to access it. The report notes generational differences too: Gen Z professionals have tried AI at higher rates, while baby boomers show lower current usage but surprisingly ambitious expectations for future AI assistance.
The adoption picture is therefore mixed: AI is already embedded in common professional tasks, but many users still regard it as a productivity aid that requires significant human review. The report’s own interpretation is that trust will depend on transparency, benchmarking, responsible innovation, and better user education.
3. What productivity and value gains does the report expect from AI?
The report’s most concrete productivity claim is that AI could free up four hours per professional per week within one year, eight hours within three years, and twelve hours within five years. Based on an assumption of 48 working weeks per year, that would equal roughly 200, 400, and 600 hours respectively.
This is one of the report’s most important findings because it connects AI adoption to organisational strategy. Freed-up time is not presented simply as a cost-saving mechanism. Respondents say they would use additional time for work-life balance, client work, long-term projects, business development, process improvement, strategic planning, research, training, and better workload management.
The report also distinguishes between efficiency and value. More than half of professionals are excited about AI because of time savings and productivity improvements, but 39% are most excited about AI’s ability to add new value to their work. Examples include handling large volumes of data more effectively, improving client response times, reducing human error, enabling advanced analytics, and supporting better decision-making.
This distinction is crucial. The report does not merely say AI will help professionals do the same work faster. It argues that AI may allow professional services to change what kind of work is done, what quality of service is delivered, and where professionals focus their expertise.
4. What risks, ethical concerns, and governance needs does the report identify?
The report identifies several persistent concerns:
- accuracy of outputs
- data security
- ethical use
- overreliance on AI
- inadequate human judgement
- and unclear accountability.
These concerns are especially important because the professions covered in the report often involve legal, regulatory, financial, compliance, or high-stakes advisory work.
Professionals draw a clear ethical boundary around full AI autonomy in high-stakes professional judgement. More than 95% of legal and tax respondents say it would be a step too far for AI to represent clients in court or make final decisions on complex professional matters. Legal professionals are particularly resistant to AI providing legal advice, while respondents in tax, risk, fraud, and compliance appear somewhat less opposed to AI involvement in strategic advice.
The report finds no single consensus on responsible AI use, but several principles recur. Almost two-thirds of respondents see data security as vital, both for prompts and outputs. A similar share see compulsory human review as critical. Other important elements include transparency about data sources, clarity on which tasks AI may be used for, bias mitigation, deletion of personal data, and standards for training data.
On enforcement, respondents favour certification processes for AI systems and standards developed by professional or industry bodies. Government regulation, company guidelines, whistleblowing, and algorithm audits are also mentioned, but the report presents certification and professional standards as the leading options.
5. What are the broader implications for professional careers, leadership, and business models?
The report’s broader implication is that AI will shift the nature of professional work rather than simply eliminate it. Fear of widespread job loss appears less prominent than in the previous year’s report. Instead, 85% of respondents believe new or additional roles will be created to manage broader AI use.
The human skills expected to become more important include problem-solving, creativity, judgement, strategic thinking, and the ability to manage AI responsibly. The report therefore frames the future professional not as someone replaced by AI, but as someone who must become better at using AI while preserving human expertise.
For leaders, the report implies that AI adoption is not just an IT project. It affects talent strategy, operating models, pricing, client value, workflow design, risk management, and organisational culture. Leaders are advised to assess skills, invest in training, create responsible AI principles, run pilot projects, scale successful use cases, and explore how AI can open new sources of stakeholder value.
The pricing implication is especially significant for professional services firms. Many respondents expect hourly-rate pricing to decline over the next five years. As AI makes routine work faster, firms will need to explain why clients should still pay premium fees for work completed more efficiently. The report argues that firms must move towards value-based pricing and become better at articulating the value AI adds beyond speed.
The conclusion is optimistic but demanding: AI can make professional careers more fulfilling and organisations more competitive, but only for those that actively embrace the technology, redesign work around it, and take responsibility for its limits.