Once you’ve learnt the foundations of what an innovation lawyer is, it’s crucial to then further understand the subtle (or perhaps not-so-subtle) differences in what law firms are up to in this space.
This is where the market gets interesting. Two firms can advertise an “Innovation Lawyer” and mean completely different things.
This is because there isn’t just one innovation model; there are several. Your day-to-day will look very different depending on (a) where the capability sits in the firm and (b) how the firm is choosing to buy, build or acquire technology.
Public announcements only ever show part of the picture, so treat them as indicators of direction rather than a full organisational chart. The aim here is to help you spot what you’re applying for.
Innovation Model 1: Embedded specialists (innovation capability sits close to practice)
Some law firms are pushing innovation and AI capability closer to practice groups, so it sits nearer to live matters, partners and real workflows.
A headline example is Linklaters, which publicly announced a 20-strong global cohort of “AI Lawyers” designed to be deployed across its network to support practices with specialist AI legal expertise.
This model tends to suit candidates who want to stay close to legal work and enjoy working directly with fee-earners on how work is done in practice. It’s usually less about “owning a platform” and more about improving the real workflow: what gets drafted, reviewed, checked, escalated, and repeated.
The trade-off is speed of accountability. When you’re embedded, nobody wants a six-month strategy paper; they want something that makes next week’s work easier.
Innovation Model 2: Central innovation / lawtech platforms (one team serving multiple practices)
Other firms lean towards a central innovation/lawtech/client solutions team that supports multiple practice groups (and often clients, too). You’ll see this described under different labels such as innovation, lawtech, client solutions, knowledge engineering, and legal delivery, although the common theme is a firm-wide remit.
Macfarlanes is a good City example of a firm that has built a visible lawtech capability, including client-facing initiatives, alongside internal innovation. On the elite US side, roles such as Latham’s Innovation Attorney have been positioned as a bridge between lawyers/clients and the technology function, with a focus on integrating tools into practice workflows.
This model suits candidates who enjoy cross-practice work, variety, and building repeatable solutions that scale. The flip side is that you’ll do more stakeholder alignment and prioritisation, because you’re serving multiple teams with competing “urgent” priorities.
The different Innovation models at law firms
Once you know where the innovation function sits, the next question is how the firm is sourcing and developing its technical capability. This is the lens that often determines whether your work is mostly rollout/adoption, workflow design, product development, or something closer to a hybrid.
These are the innovation models law firms tend to adopt:
- Platform-led adoption (external platform first)
In a platform-led setup, the firm chooses a primary external platform and focuses on scaling adoption safely and consistently. A good City law firm example is CMS, which announced a firmwide rollout of Harvey across its member firms in more than 50 countries. On the elite US side, Latham announced a firmwide deployment of Harvey via an enterprise licence.
A purely “platform only” approach is relatively uncommon. Even where a firm’s strategy is platform-led, internal work – workflow design, guardrails, training, adoption and ongoing iteration – will still need to be carried out.
If you join a platform-led environment, your value often lies in making the platform genuinely usable by choosing the right use cases, putting guardrails around them, building playbooks, and getting lawyers to use it properly when deadlines bite.
- Buy & Build (the common sweet spot in larger firms)
Many of the biggest firms are rolling out mainstream tools and then building internal capability around them. White & Case is unusually clear on this, describing their buy-and-build approach (partnering with market-leading platforms while also building tailored internal tools such as Atlas).
Clifford Chance is another good example of this dual-track approach, referencing its private internal tool “Clifford Chance Assist” alongside firm-wide deployment of Microsoft Copilot/Viva. Freshfields’ strategic collaboration with Google Cloud (including Gemini/Workspace rollout and product development ambitions) is another example of a “partner + build” direction from a large law firm. A&O Shearman’s work with Harvey on agentic AI agents aimed at complex legal workflows is a more advanced variation, where the focus is not just text generation but multi-step workflow execution.
If you join a buy-and-build environment, you should assume you’ll spend a lot of time in the messy middle, taking an off-the-shelf tool, making it fit how lawyers actually work, then tweaking it again once people start actually using it.
- Build (proprietary tools and client products)
Some firms invest heavily in building proprietary tools internally and/or developing client-facing products.
Simmons & Simmons is well known for Percy, its in-house generative AI tool. Macfarlanes’ Amplify is a good example of client-facing productisation (a tool designed to help clients interrogate documents and contractual data). Travers Smith has also been visible in this space through initiatives such as an AI Academy and the Jylo spin-out.
Build environments can be incredibly interesting if you like product thinking (requirements, testing, iteration, adoption) and don’t mind a bit of ambiguity. They also tend to reward candidates who can work comfortably with technical teams without needing to be technical themselves.
- Acquire (buying capability outright)
A smaller number of elite US firms are accelerating by acquiring capability rather than relying purely on vendor partnerships or internal hiring.
Cleary Gottlieb’s acquisition of Springbok AI is the standout recent example. For candidates, acquisitions usually signal one thing: the firm wants proprietary capability quickly, and it’s willing to buy the team and operating model to get there. It also shows that firms are willing to put significant investment into innovation.
What this means for candidates
The main takeaway isn’t “every firm is doing something different” (they are). It’s that you’re rarely choosing between good and bad innovation roles; you’re choosing between different flavours of the job.
An embedded role can be brilliant if you want proximity to partners, matters and real workflows. A central role can be brilliant if you want scale, reproducibility and firm-wide impact. Platform-led environments can be great if you enjoy turning a tool into adoption and behaviour change. Build-heavy teams can be great if you like product-style iteration and don’t mind a bit of ambiguity, and firms that have acquired teams can create unusually interesting opportunities, although they often come with pace and evolving operating models.
So, rather than asking yourself whether you ‘want’ an innovation job, it’s worth getting clear on what kind of work you want to be known for: practice-facing delivery, firm-wide rollout, workflow redesign, product development, governance, or a mix.
When you’re assessing a role, the quickest way to cut through the marketing is to ask for specifics. What did the team implement in the last 6–12 months (not just pilot)? Where does the role sit, and who has your back at partner/management level? Is the firm primarily platform-led, buy-and-build, build-heavy, or acquiring capability? How tight is the governance around AI use? And when practice groups compete for attention, who decides priorities?
If you can get those answers early, you’ll know whether you’re stepping into a proper platform that will build your profile, or a very polite invitation to become the well-dressed helpdesk for whatever tool was bought last quarter.
If you would like to discuss the role of an innovation lawyer or explore your options further, get in touch with Chris Simmonds.
