Build vs. Buy in Legal Tech: A Commercial Perspective

Introduction

In the accelerating pace of change in Legal Tech, the question of whether to build or buy solutions is more pressing than ever, especially as AI reshapes how legal teams operate. This article offers a corporate perspective on the build vs. buy debate. We will explore the trade-offs, hidden costs, and strategic considerations that underpin this critical decision. As well as consider the impacts of legacy systems, AI integration, or the limitations of traditional licensing models.

From Prototype to Pragmatism

My first experience with legal technology came in the mid-2000s, when I partnered with a brilliant Sri Lankan developer to build an in-house contract generation and dispatch tool. At the time, I had little awareness of the legal tech sector, if it existed at all. The solution we came up with would be considered rudimentary by today’s standards, but we were proud of it, nonetheless. However, this example is still the one-and-only time I’ve built a legal tech product, despite having worked with some of the world’s largest technology companies in the 20 years since.

Why? Because building legal tech is hard. It’s one of the few commercial domains still shrouded in complexity in a world that champions simplicity. And while enterprise conversations around AI have reignited interest in building solutions rather than buying them, the reality is that building should only be the preferred course of action when it can quantifiably outperform off-the-shelf products.

The Hidden Costs of Building

In-house solutions appeal to teams seeking control, customisation, and, at least in theory, cost savings. But these benefits can quickly erode, especially when legacy systems are involved. Commercial operations are rarely greenfield environments. They’re typically anchored to outdated infrastructure, fragmented data sources, and sprawling workflows that evolved organically rather than strategically.

Integrating a new build solution into this environment isn’t just a technical challenge, it’s a cultural one. Even though AI can now generate code and automate development, what about governance, security, and support? Who responds (and is responsible) when something breaks? These questions are far from trivial.  Downtime isn’t just inconvenient, it’s expensive.

Buying Isn’t Plug-and-Play

Off-the-shelf legal tech offers maturity, scalability, and vendor accountability. Enterprise-grade solutions come with robust infrastructure, service-level agreements, and dedicated support. Vendors have the commercial focus and resources to maintain reliability and performance.

But buying isn’t without trade-offs. It means relying on someone else’s roadmap, someone else’s uptime guarantees, and someone else’s interpretation of your business needs. The trust between provider and customer must be earned and continuously validated.

AI and the Illusion of Simplicity

AI has added urgency to the Build vs. Buy debate, not because it simplifies the decision, but because it exposes the gaps in ownership, governance, and infrastructure. But that evolution only delivers value when the underlying systems are aligned, and someone owns the process end-to-end.

Whether building custom AI workflows or buying platforms that integrate with LLMs, enterprises must first resolve the foundational issues: fragmented data, unclear accountability, and siloed processes. Without ownership, AI becomes, whether your organisation has taken the necessary steps to clean up unstructured data and streamline processes before introducing additional platforms.

Legal Tech: Is it Strategically Aligned to Corporations?

One reason enterprises are reconsidering build is fatigue with subscription-based licensing, particularly seat-based models. At scale, these models become business bottlenecks. Legal Tech, designed for lawyers, doesn’t embed seamlessly in corporations, where legal processes span departments, geographies, and fragmented cost centres.

Furthermore, global corporations like Amazon or Procter & Gamble may have tens of thousands of salespeople and commercial stakeholders. Legal teams only make up a fraction of this userbase; Legal Tech providers often focus their solutions on features and tools that make legal work efficient, rather than scale to drive process efficiencies at higher volumes, that benefit the workforce as a whole.

A Pragmatic Path Forward

While no solution is truly built from scratch - it’s hard to imagine a platform built today that doesn’t integrate foundational models like LLMs. So, what layer of the stack do you want to own? Whether you’re integrating directly or through a vendor, the decision develops from a debate on build vs. buy and more about control vs. dependency.

Build should be considered when:

• Off-the-shelf solutions cannot meet critical business needs

• The organisation has the capability to maintain and evolve the product

• The build offers a strategic advantage that outweighs the cost and complexity

Otherwise, buy, and buy wisely. Choose vendors who understand enterprise realities, offer flexible licensing, and commit to uptime and support. Tech solutions shouldn’t be about adopting the shiny new tool to keep pace with competitors; it’s should be focussed on enabling business at scale.

And at scale, pragmatism beats perfection.

Alf Deufemia

CLM Product Lead

LSEG (London Stock Exchange Group)