Michael Kennedy left university swearing off being a lawyer. He went to work in restaurants and retail for a while, and finally came back to it as a paralegal at Addleshaw Goddard. (These interesting career paths are becoming a bit of a theme on the podcast!)
When he started his training contract, it was very much focused on innovation and technology. This was a bit of a rarity at the time, and Mike was one of the first in the UK to follow a legal tech-focused training contract. Since then, the innovation team at AG has grown from a handful of people to around 80 today.
Fast forward to 2026, and Mike now runs the firm’s R&D function, a broad role that encompasses horizon scanning, startup engagement, partnering with clients, internal education, leading a development team, and - increasingly - a fair amount of building things himself.
How do you keep up?
I asked Mike how anyone keeps up when the world is spinning this fast. His answer is that he doesn’t really switch off. He reads constantly, runs research agents through Claude Code, and writes a fortnightly internal newsletter for his team: three things to know, three deep dives, then a long reading list. (Side note: I think this is a great habit to get into. It’s actually one of the reasons I started this blog in the first place!)
He says it’s really important for him to know what he’s talking about. He’s not afraid to say he doesn’t know, but he doesn’t like saying it, so he’d rather know and do it.
AGPT and Buy vs Build
The most visible output of Mike’s team is AGPT, the firm’s in-house AI tool. It’s one of the rare examples of a law firm having built its own in-house AI solution at a time when most of the industry is focused on buying legal AI.
Mike describes AGPT, with characteristic understatement, as “what most people just call a wrapper”. It lives in the firm’s Microsoft Azure environment and does the usual things: chat, document review, translation, prompt libraries, citation tracking.
In early 2023, Mike’s team wanted a sandbox to test whether GPT-3.5 was good enough for legal documents. They couldn’t throw client matters into ChatGPT, so they asked the developers to stand something up inside the firm. Other lawyers started asking for access. A pilot followed, then a firm-wide rollout by autumn 2023. The sandbox became the product. Today AGPT runs around 6,000 prompts a day across roughly a thousand users, and the dev team hasn’t had a quiet week since.
Mike’s buy vs. build framework is worth listening to because it comes from someone who has actually done both - and believes in doing both.
Cost is obviously a factor in decisions, but he frames it as a return-on-investment question rather than a sticker-price one. The bigger factors, he says, are three things:
Institutional knowledge: you can build for your specific audience in a way you can’t buy for one. A product on the market might have 70% irrelevant features and lose people before they engage, whereas a 30% solution built for your lawyers can land better. That said, if vendors are willing to partner and co-develop things, that can be a solid option too.
Client consent and data: self-hosted removes a lot of friction and makes for easier discussions with clients.
Portability: which he thinks is underrated. The value is in the solution to the problem, not the tech it happens to run on. In Mike’s view, law firms are going to want to move their prompt libraries, workflows and accumulated know-how between models, and the firms that treat their intelligence as tech-agnostic will have an easier time than those locked into a single vendor. He uses a nice phrase for this: portable intelligence. We discuss the relevance of standards like Skills as a way to make intelligence portable between vendor and in-house solutions.
It’s worth listening to the full discussion on this as Mike shares more about his buy vs build framework.
Claude, vibecoding, and the artifact economy
Mike and I are both heavy Claude users. He uses Claude Code primarily to build prototypes - someone in the firm has an idea, usually hard to execute, and instead of taking notes and going away for six months, Mike builds a rough version and shows it to them.
One recent example is a regulatory horizon scanning tool for banks, the kind of thing his financial regs team has wanted for a long time. Not a finished product but enough to say “is this what you mean?” and have a real conversation with the Partner.
On Claude for legal work itself, Mike is bullish in a way that he thinks should worry the established legal AI vendors. A lot of work inside law firms isn’t legal research. It’s factual research, web searching, document comparison, content creation, the work that fills a competition team’s afternoon. That work is dramatically easier in Claude than in Google, and Mike says Addleshaw is considering wider licenses for the lawyers and teams who would benefit.
Training junior lawyers in a world with fewer trainee tasks
The question that won’t go away is what happens to junior lawyer training when the grunt work disappears. He thinks training in law firms has always sort of worked by accident. Trainees are bright, engaged, hard-working people who pick things up by osmosis, sat next to a supervisor with a red pen. It’s slow, it’s inconsistent, and what you actually learn is often one individual’s approach rather than a structured body of knowledge.
His proposed solution is a good one: use the firm’s data and know-how to build anonymised simulations based on real client matters. Give trainees scoring, measurement, and a structured way to develop across different areas. If AI reduces the billable work trainees do by 20%, use that time for simulated exercises rather than cutting trainee numbers by 20%. It’s an optimistic framing, and Mike knows it. The realist’s version is that firms will just fill the hours with more work and make more money, because that’s what the economic incentives reward.
Side note: Mike has built a prototype for this - it’s live on my Vibecode.law platform - check it out!
Final note
What I take from my conversation with Mike is that there’s a particular kind of legal innovator becoming more common in the industry. They’re not pure technologists and they’re not pure lawyers. They’ve got enough technical ability to build, enough legal experience to know what matters, and enough organisational patience to sit inside a big firm and make things happen.
In my view, a lot of the interesting change in BigLaw over the next few years is going to come from “intrapreneurs” like Mike, inside firms, building things and encouraging others to do so.
