Blinded by the Legal Halo: A Better Approach to Legal Tech Selection

The difference between technology that lights the way and technology that leaves you in the dark isn’t always about the software per se, it’s about how you choose it.

From AI hype cycles to surprise vendor mergers, the legal technology landscape has never been more complex. Yet many firms still approach selection with a familiar mindset: if a big-name firm has adopted a system, it must be the right choice for us too. 

It’s a tempting shortcut, but one that can leave you dazzled by the brand, drawn in by the sales pitch, and ultimately investing in the wrong solution.

The legal halo is bright, but it can also be blinding!

The Glow That Can Blur Your Vision

We’ve lost count of the firms who tell us, “if this technology is good enough for firm X, why wouldn’t it be good enough for us?” It’s a fair question, but one that can lead you straight into the halo effect, where reputation trumps fit.

This is where external expertise matters. This statement does not dilute the value of in-house talent. Resource with specific knowledge of firm culture built across decades, plays a crucial role in technology selection. Additionally, the role of the external advisor brings a different lens to technology investment. Both roles are critical to strategic technology selection. 

The trusted independent adviser will reference the actual experience of multiple law firms, understand the nuanced requirements of the spectrum of full-service and specialist law firms, different regional and cultural elements, and share this knowledge to inform effective decision making to benefit the client in question.

The presence of this role can make a big difference to a decision which is going to shape your firm for years to come.

What Lies in The Shadows

We see these dynamics play out in real life, with frustrating consequences, and often with expensive ones. The details change from firm to firm, but the underlying themes are strikingly familiar. Here are a few stories from the front lines of legal tech selection.

In one instance, a firm signed for a time recording system only to find, a year later, that the project hadn’t even started and the SaaS was being billed monthly and unused.

In another case, a practice management system was purchased based on due diligence that had been carried out for a completely different firm, analysis that was tailored to that specific organisation’s needs and culture. You simply cannot assume the fit will be the same, particularly where risk appetite and partner lifecycle go unchecked.

We’ve also watched firms commit to niche products, only to see the vendor acquired by a larger player. The acquisition triggered a “mandatory upgrade” which, in reality, meant a full reimplementation. Licensing rolled over automatically, but service costs doubled, once for the original implementation, then again for the upgrade. Without protective clauses, the firm bore both costs.

And then there are the cloud migrations where due diligence was handled entirely in-house. Without independent validation, when problems emerged later, there was no external evidence base to support the decision. The partnership’s focus shifted from fixing the issues to questioning the judgement that led to them.

In each of these scenarios, the root cause was the same: decisions were made based on assumptions or trends rather than a clear, internally validated set of criteria, requirements and a bit of ‘what if’ analysis to identify what might change after signing the contract.

Selection as a Strategic Process

Technology selection is not just a procurement exercise; it’s a strategic inflection point. Every decision influences the law firm operating model, talent strategy, and importantly - client experience. That means selection needs to be anchored in more than a feature checklist.

A good selection process starts with:

• Market scanning – Understanding broadly what’s available in the space you’re trying to solve for.

• Known requirements, not assumed ones – Just because another firm uses product X doesn’t mean it will suit yours.

• Strategically established criteria for selection – Agree on your core selection criteria before any vendor conversation starts.

  
  

Our experts advocate for a cross functional review before a Request for Proposal (RFP) goes out. That means examining how finance, compliance, knowledge, and people functions fit together, mapping current and future states, and understanding where the friction is. Only then do we build a shortlist of tools that align. Nothing is more frustrating to technology vendors than firms who can not articulate what they actually want.

Guarding Against the Flicker 

Strategic selection also means preparing for what might change. No tool is perfect, and no vendor is static. That’s why we recommend:

• RFP support – Thoroughly vet vendors before the 50-page slide deck arrives.

• Independent due diligence – Get unfiltered, real-world feedback from people who’ve lived through implementation.

• Gap analysis – Match tools to your policies, processes, people and services; adoption fails if the fit isn’t right.

• Contractual protection including AI assessment – Legal and commercial review of all contractual documents is vital to ensuring remedy exists if the worst becomes reality. This must focus on risks which could likely become issues and provide practical means for resolution. Data Protection is key here, especially while regulatory positions on generative AI remain unclear.

Beyond the Neon Facade 

AI has accelerated what is at least an interim shift away from monolithic end-to-end platforms. Increasingly, firms are curating “best-in-breed” stacks: tools that each excel at one function and integrate well together.

Large vendors know this, and their countermove is to acquire niche technologies and rebrand them as part of a seamless ecosystem. The reality can be far less smooth. An independent partner can help you see through the rebrand, check integration realities, and avoid functionality overlaps that quietly drain budgets.

Guiding the Spotlight

The spotlight should be firmly in your control, illuminating your firm’s vision. That means setting the direction, deciding what matters most, and keeping every decision aligned to your goals, not to the glow of the latest feature or the loudest brand.

Firms that hold the spotlight well:

• Engage in cross-functional business reviews before defining requirements.

• Set and agree criteria for selection early.

• Use independent market scans and shortlisting to avoid vendor bias.

• Align selection with the business, not just Technology Services.

• Plan for adoption, training, and ongoing support from the start.

When you hold the torch, you see clearly avoiding the shadows, spotting the risks, and focusing only on what truly serves your firm. That’s how you end up with technology that works for you now and adapts with you in the future.

Jacqui Dabell

Consultant

Alt-V Law