Full article

Are there massive layoffs at Clifford Chance? much has been published, but what is the reality

THE TRUTH ABOUT CLIFFORD CHANCE, Allianz Partners (Allianz Group) and HP

In recent weeks an uncomfortable but inevitable debate has reopened: is artificial intelligence destroying qualified employment? The media spotlight has pointed to advanced services firms, and the most cited example in the legal sector is Clifford Chance.

What do we know about the Clifford Chance case?

Reference media from the British legal market have reported that Clifford Chance has begun a restructuring of its business services team in London, the support areas not directly linked to legal billing, which will imply cutting around 10% of its positions in that office, estimated at some 50 roles.

The internal narrative that these media report links the adjustment to two complementary forces: on the one hand the AI automation of repetitive tasks (document management, internal reporting, assistance in administrative workflows) and on the other the reorganization and centralization in international hubs (a trend prior to AI but accelerated by it).

The key nuance is that the impact, at least for now, does not fall on the teams of lawyers, but on support functions. This is consistent with what is happening in many organizations: AI first transforms the “back office” and only later reshapes the main value chain.

The economic reason behind the headline

Saying “they lay off because of AI” is journalistically useful, but conceptually incomplete, not to say incorrect; there is a difference between:

AI as a direct cause: we are talking about roles replaced because a tool performs the task better and cheaper.

AI as a strategic enabler: we are talking about technology that allows processes to be redesigned, services to be concentrated, operational layers to be reduced.
In Clifford Chance, based on what has been published, we are in the second scenario: AI reduces the marginal cost of certain tasks and makes a lighter structure viable in expensive centers like London.

This distinction matters legally because it affects the company’s justification for dismissal, collective bargaining, and reskilling obligations: “substitutive automation” is not the same as “productive reorganization with technological support”.

Real cases outside the legal sector to understand the trend

Although each company has its context, 2025 has left several announcements where AI appears explicitly associated with cuts or restructurings:

Allianz Partners (Allianz Group): Reuters reported plans to reduce between 1,500 and 1,800 positions in its travel insurance division, citing the adoption of AI to automate processes, especially in call centers and claims management.
HP: The company announced a plan to cut 4,000–6,000 jobs through 2028, linking it to an operational shift toward AI to gain productivity and save costs.
In both cases, the companies present AI as an efficiency lever, but classic factors also weigh in: margin pressure, new strategy, and the search for structural savings.

Three plausible hypothetical scenarios and what they teach

Below are hypothetical cases inspired by patterns observed in the market. They do not describe concrete facts, but they help visualize how the impact materializes.

Hypothetical case A: international banking and compliance automation

A large European bank decides to implement generative AI for automatic screening of AML alerts, initial drafting of compliance reports, and classification of KYC documentation. The hypothetical supposed result would be a 15% reduction of the junior compliance team in headquarters, while new roles are created for model supervision, algorithmic auditing, and data governance.
It is important to say that this is not the end of compliance, but a change in the employment profile: less manual processing, more system control.

Hypothetical case B: pharmaceuticals and regulatory processes

A multinational pharmaceutical company introduces AI for the automated extraction of clinical evidence, drafts of regulatory dossiers and certifiable technical translations; the hypothetical result is that external medical writing teams and part of the regulatory back office are cut; highly specialized internal teams are reinforced to validate and correct AI output, so that it eliminates providers and eliminates mechanical tasks, but raises the technical demands of the roles that remain.

Hypothetical case C: auditing firm and financial services

A “Big Four” deploys AI for massive accounting reconciliations, anomaly detection and automatic generation of annexes; the hypothetical result would be that demand for repetitive profiles in initial auditing would fall, but hiring increases in analytics, cyber-risk and technology consulting, so we should take into consideration that here AI works as a sectoral redistributor, destroys employment in one line and creates it in another.

Are we therefore facing a wave of AI layoffs?

The evidence from 2025 suggests a double answer:

Yes, there are cuts associated with AI, especially in routine tasks and support functions. Allianz or HP acknowledge this in their plans, but it is rarely only AI. Technology mixes with economic cycles, business consolidation, offshoring, and pressure for efficiency.

That is why some analysts speak more of a “recomposition of work” than of immediate massive substitution.

In addition, global surveys indicate that a relevant part of large companies expects to reduce headcount through automation in the coming years and other sources place it around 40%, but at the same time they foresee job creation in digital profiles, but in no case will they be able to cover the losses in other departments or areas

Legal implications and talent management

For law firms worldwide, the Clifford Chance case is an early warning, but it must be taken into account, and in fact some partners of the large international firms warn that they are going to slow the hiring of lawyers, although they do not want to recognize it publicly

Labor relevance: layoffs due to technological reorganization require justifying a productive/organizational cause, and open duties of reskilling in sectors where AI is implemented as a structural tool.

Regulatory relevance: the control of algorithmic risks becomes central—biases, traceability, liability for errors—which generates new legal demand
Strategic relevance: AI does not “take away work” uniformly; it displaces tasks and increases the value of expert supervision.

Conclusion

What has happened at Clifford Chance is not yet a labor dystopia, but it is a symptom. AI is not replacing the lawyer for now, but it is redesigning the internal architecture of professional organizations. The question is no longer whether there will be impact, but where it falls first and what capabilities will survive.
The challenge for the legal sector is not to resist automation, but to anticipate it: invest in hybrid profiles, negotiate fair transitions, and build clear responsibility frameworks. Because at this stage, more than “AI layoffs”, what we are seeing is an economy restructuring around AI. But these early symptoms are like futures in the stock market, THEY CLEARLY ANNOUNCE TO US THAT IN THE SHORT TERM AROUND A YEAR LAW FIRMS WILL BEGIN A PROCESS OF CONTAINING STAFF IF NOT REDUCING IT.