Several law firms told Law360 Pulse they are seeking flexible contract terms as they are testing multiple legal products at once or experimenting with less expensive tools that were not designed for the practice of law.
In general, legal AI tools are expensive, starting from a couple of hundred dollars per person. Exacerbating the cost is that some legal AI vendors might be reluctant to sell access on anything less than a firmwide basis.
One popular legal AI vendor is Thomson Reuters, whose CoCounsel platform has been widely marketed to law firms. Mark Allen, the chief technology officer of Porzio Bromberg, told Law360 Pulse that the vendor required the firm in late 2024 to purchase licenses for its staff of around 110 attorneys if it wanted any access at all.
After an extensive follow-up demo of CoCounsel in spring, Allen said the firm received a new proposal from Thomson Reuters for a partial rollout. Under the updated terms, the firm could get access to licenses for just some attorneys, but it would have to pay extra for the partial rollout.
The firm balked at the upcharge.
"We're a small firm and we want to be able to make sure that we get the [most bang for our buck]," Allen said.
The firm's hesitation over paying extra for partial access was compounded by another concern: The proposal required a multiyear commitment. Allen added that the firm wasn't ready to make such a long-term commitment. With generative AI evolving rapidly and new players constantly entering the market, the firm wanted flexibility before locking in long-term obligations.
Law360 Pulse asked Thomson Reuters if it requires every lawyer in a firm to get access to CoCounsel, if a premium is charged for partial access and if it requires multiyear contracts.
"We are committed to maintaining a pricing strategy that reflects the value we provide, while also ensuring we are meeting the evolving needs of our customers and in alignment with our changing industry," a representative from Thomson Reuters said. "Our customers work closely with their sales representatives and account managers to determine how best to meet their unique needs."
Following its demo with CoCounsel, Porzio Bromberg recently completed a demo with the legal AI tool Harvey, but hasn't received pricing details yet.
"We do not require firmwide rollouts as a condition of buying and certainly see firms [that] wish to deploy Harvey to a geography or a practice area first before rolling it out to the entire organization," a representative from Harvey told Law360 Pulse.
The representative from Harvey added that there is no premium per seat, but customers get more favorable pricing with volume. Harvey also offers annual licensing and multiyear contract options.
Allen also met with representatives from Legora, another legal AI tool, at a recent legal tech conference. Legora did not respond to a request for comment about its pricing structure.
A representative from LexisNexis Legal & Professional, Law360's parent and the company behind legal AI assistant Lexis+ AI, told Law360 Pulse that because its AI solutions are tailored, its pricing is also tailored for each customer.
Firm Size Matters
Firms with more attorneys have some flexibility when adopting AI tools.
Blank Rome LLP, which has more than 750 attorneys, is currently using both CoCounsel and Harvey. Frank Spadafino, the firm's chief information officer, said its AI vendors are generally flexible with the number of licenses the firm can order, because vendors often offer discounts for bulk purchases.
The firm, however, also prefers vendors that recognize that a multiyear commitment to a large AI platform is unrealistic at this stage, given that the technology continues to evolve.
"One of the things that we told our partners is that flexibility is really important for us, because the pace of development is so fast," Ashton Batchelor, Blank Rome's chief innovation and value officer, told Law360 Pulse.
Like smaller firms, some BigLaw firms struggle when AI vendors require broad licensing for tools that only some attorneys need.
"We continue to see regularly that AI tools across the legal market are being priced on an all-enterprise or all-seats basis," said Mark Brennan, global managing partner for digitalization at Hogan Lovells. "This creates a number of complications and ultimately, in almost all cases, is a value mismatch."
Brennan said he routinely receives vendor offers based on the firm's total attorney count, which is about 2,800 lawyers. While he declined to name specific legal AI vendors, Brennan explained that the platforms are designed for specific use cases, and it wouldn't make sense to pay for licenses for all attorneys whenever only some need the software.
For example, a platform that drafts motions and pleadings is more valuable for litigators than transactional attorneys, while a tool that creates term sheets might be good for transactional work but largely unnecessary for litigators. Brennan said firms might feel differently about a tool based on its mix of transactional attorneys and litigators.
Brennan said he thinks vendors are overlooking a "value gap" between the hypothetical — if all attorneys use the tool — versus the reality — that the tool is "frankly going to be used just by a small portion of the firm."
How Law Firms are Responding
Some firms are going to new lengths to find the right generative AI platform that fits both need and budget.
Porzio Bromberg is exploring the enterprise version of the AI-powered search engine Perplexity as an alternative to a legal-specific generative AI platform. Attorneys in the firm's life sciences department have been testing the tool. Allen said Perplexity's ability to offer citations for its answers found favor with his firm, and said the firm has already sanctioned the tool to fit its security policy.
Allen praised Perplexity for providing sources for its answers and said the firm has already sanctioned the tool to fit its security policy.
Perplexity's cost, at $40 per user per month, is substantially more affordable than any legal AI tool, which can add up to hundreds of dollars per user each month. But Perplexity was not designed for legal work.
The only reason the firm is considering Perplexity is because of its price, according to Allen.
Allen said he is concerned the enterprise version of Perplexity may not be sufficient for all practice areas, and the firm would not buy Perplexity if it selects one of the legal generative AI platforms instead.
"We have to watch our dollars," Allen said.
Meanwhile, Blank Rome is using both Harvey and CoCounsel in 2025, evaluating the tools side by side. Contracts with both vendors are nearing completion, and the firm will decide to keep both or pick one.
For now, Spadafino said it's too early to decide but acknowledged that the firm will eventually have to make a decision. Either way, Spadafino said the firm doesn't want to get tied down to a single vendor over many years, given the rapid development of AI tools.
"There are applications now that have gained ground even in the last six months that didn't exist when we first got started with Harvey and CoCounsel," Spadafino said.
--Editing by Nicole Bleier.
Law360 is owned by LexisNexis Legal & Professional, a RELX company.
Update: This story has been updated with comments from LexisNexis.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
