In the latest Talking Tech podcast with Legal IT Insider, Baker McKenzie’s chief innovation officer Ben Allgrove sets out the international firm’s pragmatic approach to and strategy for generative AI, arguing that law firms must resist locking themselves into long-term technology bets in a fast-moving market.
Allgrove, who has long emphasised the importance of focusing on outcomes over hype, described Baker McKenzie’s strategy as both “multi-model and multi-vendor”, designed to preserve agility as the technology and client demand evolve.
“The pace of change… is so fast that tying yourself to a single vendor or a single model at this stage… is not the right strategy,” he says, adding: “You’re pretty brave if you think you can predict more than six months out from a strategic perspective.”
Multi-vendor, but not ‘anything goes’
While Baker McKenzie is actively working with multiple vendors and models, Allgrove was clear that this does not translate into unrestricted choice for end users. Instead, the firm is standardising tools within practice areas or use cases to avoid overwhelming lawyers and to support adoption.
Training is also being handled carefully. Rather than focusing primarily on individual tools, the firm is prioritising education around core concepts, including “the foundations of what the technology does. and how that fits into a lawyer’s workflow.”
Allgrove said this reflects a broader shift in what it means to be a high-performing lawyer, with continuous learning and adaptability now essential.
Control, not consolidation
On the question of platform strategy, Allgrove suggested that firms should resist handing over too much control to a single external provider.
Baker McKenzie’s focus is on retaining control of its orchestration layer while allowing different technologies to plug into that environment. This, he suggested, is important for reasons including cost management, intellectual property, client relationships and scalability.
With an emerging battle between legal AI v general AI vendors (such as Anthropic), Allgrove says: “When it comes to legal specific versus the general models, I think that is a battle in the industry, right? I think that is one that the legal applications are going to have to challenge. What is the value they continue to bring as the core functionality of some of the enterprise?”
Differentiation lies beyond technology
Despite the focus on platforms and tooling, Allgrove argued that technology itself will not be the primary differentiator between firms.
Instead, differentiation will continue to come from human talent and proprietary knowledge. Technology will influence how services are delivered and priced, but not in itself define competitive advantage.
Pricing pressures ahead
Looking ahead, Allgrove highlighted a significant shift in economics. While current pricing dynamics are supported by subsidised compute costs, he expects this to change, creating pressure on traditional billing models.
As consumption-based pricing increases, law firms may face a paradox: encouraging greater use of AI while simultaneously incurring higher costs. We discuss the implications of this from an increasingly complex pricing perspective.
A cautious but transformational shift
Although Allgrove reiterated that he does not “buy the hype”, he acknowledged that this wave of AI is materially different from previous cycles, pointing to its general-purpose nature and its impact across entire industries, not just law firms. Regardless of whether there is a bubble or not, the tech is here to stay.
