Law firms are increasingly competing with technology companies for engineers, data scientists and other specialists as artificial intelligence becomes a bigger part of legal work.
Cooley is among the firms taking an aggressive approach. The firm has created Cooley AI, a separate unit described as a law-firm-owned artificial intelligence company, with the aim of developing technology for its lawyers and changing how legal services are delivered.
David Wang, Cooley’s chief innovation officer, said the unit is being run with a startup-style structure while remaining closely connected to the law firm’s operations.
The strategy is intended to attract technical professionals who want to work on complex AI problems while seeing their work applied directly to legal matters.
“You want people that want to work on really frontier difficult problems,” Wang said, adding that this can be difficult for traditional law firms to offer.
Cooley is currently recruiting for 14 positions within Cooley AI, including senior engineering roles. At least four people have already joined, including professionals moving from other law firms and technology companies.
The firm has also hired an engineer from Adobe, while additional recruitment is underway among established technology companies and startups.
Cooley has not disclosed its overall investment in the new AI business or the compensation packages being offered. Wang said the firm intends to remain competitive with prevailing technology-market salaries.
One advertised position for a senior AI data engineer carries a salary range of $220,000 to $250,000 — broadly comparable with starting compensation for lawyers at major US firms.
The hiring push comes as large law firms expand their technology teams. Firms including Covington & Burling, Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Latham & Watkins, Kirkland & Ellis, McGuireWoods, Mayer Brown and White & Case have advertised AI-related positions.
Some of the roles command substantial salaries, with at least one firm advertising compensation of as much as $438,000 for a director of applied AI.
AI investment accelerates
Law firms are also committing significant amounts of money to building their own AI capabilities.
Kirkland & Ellis said earlier this year that it planned to allocate $500 million from its revenue over three to four years toward development of a proprietary AI platform.
Morgan & Morgan has announced plans to invest at least $1 billion in AI over the next decade.
Cooley’s AI expansion has also coincided with the launch of a product developed with OpenAI to assist companies preparing to go public. The tool is intended for use by the firm’s lawyers in client matters.
The broader technology push comes as AI companies themselves become destinations for legal professionals. A report from legal analytics company Firm Prospects found that 46 lawyers from the 200 highest-grossing US law firms moved to companies including Harvey, Anthropic and OpenAI during the first half of the year.
The shift illustrates how the competition is running in both directions: law firms are recruiting technical specialists while AI companies are attracting lawyers with legal expertise.
Seyfarth faces lawsuit after data incident
Seyfarth Shaw is facing a proposed class action filed in federal court in Chicago over a cybersecurity incident that the plaintiff alleges exposed sensitive personal information relating to more than 56,000 people.
The lawsuit was brought by a former employee of AAA Mountain West Group, one of the firm’s clients, shortly after Seyfarth disclosed the incident to state regulators.
Seyfarth has disputed the characterization of the incident as a network breach. The firm said an individual posing as an IT help-desk employee targeted one worker and obtained a limited number of documents that were then sent to an unauthorized email account.
The firm said its systems were not breached and that no malware was involved.
3M ordered to pay nearly $296,000 in legal fees
A federal judge in Illinois has ordered 3M to pay $295,933 in legal fees to DiCello Levitt, the law firm representing the state in litigation concerning alleged contamination involving so-called forever chemicals.
US District Judge Sara Darrow approved the fees for approximately 285 hours of work connected to 3M’s unsuccessful attempt to move the case from state court to federal court.
Illinois filed the underlying lawsuit against 3M in 2022, alleging contamination of drinking water, soil and air. The company has denied wrongdoing and challenged the decision returning the case to state court.
3M had opposed the state’s request for reimbursement of the legal fees.
The ruling allows the contingency-fee lawyers representing Illinois to recover costs associated with the removal dispute.
