What the firm announced

According to Non-Billable (October 16) and Bar & Bench (October 19), the firm will:

  • Use both platforms. Harvey and Legora, rather than a single vendor.
  • Keep building its own tools. ELTEMATE, the firm's in-house legal tech business of roughly 100 people, will continue developing proprietary tools, workflows and client-facing solutions. Non-Billable gives that headcount; Bar & Bench doesn't.
  • Create an AI Board. It will review ideas from practice groups and sectors and decide what the firm builds in-house and what it sources externally, including allocating resources and overseeing deployment.
  • Name new leaders. Paul Otto becomes Managing Partner for Legal Technology and AI. Oliver Campbell becomes Chief Transformation Officer. Bill Ferreira leads a new commercial unit covering client delivery.

Zaldivar described the approach as combining "the best technology available with innovations we build ourselves." Non-Billable notes the changes come three months after the Hogan Lovells and Cadwalader merger completed.

Neither report gives a rollout schedule, contract values, pricing, or the number of lawyers who will have access. We haven't seen any of those published.

Why it matters beyond one firm

The decision is about structure, not about which vendor won. A firm with the budget to standardize on one platform chose a pair of platforms, an internal build team and a board that decides between building and buying. That's a statement about where the firm thinks its advantage sits.

Our read, which is an opinion and not something either report says: the part a firm keeps is its own playbook. How work comes in, who reviews it, and who signs off all travel from one tool to the next. A subscription doesn't. That's the argument for owning those pieces in a form any tool can follow.

Smaller firms don't need two platforms. The point that transfers is the discipline: decide per job what to buy, and write down the parts you need to keep. The multi-vendor checklist turns that into questions you can answer in an afternoon.

A 10-minute test before you renew or sign

  1. Write down how new matters come in today. If it only lives inside a vendor's settings, it isn't yours.
  2. Write down what gets reviewed, and by whom, before anything leaves the firm.
  3. Write down who answers when the AI gets it wrong.

If all three fit on one page, switching tools is a project, not a crisis. If they don't, the next renewal is a negotiation you've already lost.

For how the two platforms compare, see Harvey vs Legora and Legora alternatives. For how to choose a stack, read the legal AI stack decision framework and the vendor concentration risk checklist.

Sources

Questions and answers

Did Hogan Lovells Cadwalader choose Harvey or Legora?

Both. The firm signed agreements with each as part of a new firmwide AI strategy, according to Non-Billable and Bar & Bench.

What did the CEO say about it?

Miguel Zaldivar said: "There is no single AI solution that will meet every need of a modern global law firm."

What is ELTEMATE?

The firm's in-house legal tech business. Non-Billable puts it at roughly 100 people. It builds technology for clients and for the firm's lawyers and will keep developing proprietary tools alongside Harvey and Legora.

What does the AI Board do?

Per Bar & Bench, it reviews AI ideas from practice groups and sectors and decides whether to build or buy, allocates resources and oversees development and deployment.

Should a mid-size firm also sign two platforms?

Not necessarily. Our view is that the transferable lesson is to own your intake, review and sign-off process in writing so you can change tools without rebuilding it.

Operational information, not legal advice. Facts come from the two reports above, read October 21, 2026; we did not see the firm's own announcement. The reading of what it means is our opinion.