When one platform is enough

Stay with one platform when most of your AI use is a single kind of work, such as contract review or research, and your team already works inside that tool. One contract means one security review, one set of access controls and one training program. A second platform adds all three again.

When a second platform earns its place

Add one when a job the first can't do well is frequent enough to justify a second review of the vendor. Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is a large-firm example: it signed both Harvey and Legora and kept an in-house team building its own tools. Its CEO said no single AI solution will meet every need of a modern global law firm. That reasoning scales down to the question "which of our jobs does the first tool handle badly?"

The checklist

Answer these before you sign a second platform or renew the first.

What you own 1. Is your intake process written down outside any vendor tool? 2. Are your review steps and approval thresholds written down in a form any tool can follow? 3. Are your templates, clause positions and playbooks stored in files you control? 4. Can you export your prompts, workflows and outputs? In what format?

What it costs to run two 5. Does each vendor need its own security and confidentiality review? See the vendor security questionnaire. 6. Who administers access in each tool, and who removes a departing lawyer from both? 7. Where do outputs land? If two tools produce work in two places, who reconciles them? 8. What does each seat cost, and what are the contract terms and exit rights? Check the red flags list.

What happens when it fails 9. Who answers when the AI gets something wrong, and is that the same person for both tools? 10. If you drop one tool next year, how long would the switch take?

If you can't answer questions 1 to 3 without opening a vendor's admin panel, fix that first. It's the cheapest protection against lock-in, and it's the same work whether you run one platform or three.

What to compare

Pick the tools per job, then compare them on that job with your own documents. The legal AI stack decision framework and vendor concentration risk checklist go deeper. If Harvey and Legora are on the list, start with Harvey vs Legora.

Sources

Questions and answers

Can a law firm use Harvey and Legora together?

Yes. Hogan Lovells Cadwalader announced agreements with both in October 2026, according to Non-Billable and Bar & Bench.

Is a multi-vendor AI strategy more expensive?

Usually, yes. Each platform brings its own contract, security review, access administration and training. It pays off only when each tool handles a distinct job well.

What is vendor lock-in in legal AI?

It's when your intake rules, templates and review steps live only inside one vendor's configuration, so switching means rebuilding them. Writing them down in tool-neutral documents reduces it.

How do I decide between one platform and two?

List your recurring AI jobs, test each tool on your own documents for those jobs, and add a second platform only if a frequent job is handled badly by the first.

Who should own the AI vendor decision at a firm?

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader created an AI Board to decide what to build and what to buy. A smaller firm can give one partner that decision and record it in a one-page policy.

Operational information, not legal advice. The checklist is our framework, not a study. The one example is taken from published reports read October 21, 2026.